Concerning Copyright Restrictions - Semantic Scholar

WARNING Concerning Copyright Restrictions The copyright law of the United States (Title 1.7, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or reproduction. One of three specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship or research. If electronic transmission of reserve material is used for purposes in excess of what constitutes “fair use”, that user may be liable for copyright infringement. This policy is in effect for the following document: Metacognitive Development and the Cognitive Internal State Lexicon. Booth, James and Hall, William. SOURCE: National Reading Research Center, Reading Research Report No. 18, Spring 1994: 1-28.

National Reading Research Center Universities of Georgia and Maryland Reading Research Report No. 18 Spring 1994

Metacognitive Development and the Cognitive Internal State Lexicon James R. Booth University of Maryland College Park William S. Hall University of Maryland College Park

Abstract. This investigation sought to determine the role of cognitive word knowledge in metacognitive development. Subjects were fifth graders, seventh graders, tenth graders, and college undergraduates. Each subject completed a Likert scale self-report qWstiomuNire that measured the frequency of their metacognitive strategy use and a multiple-choice test that measured their cognitive word knowledge. Achievement percentiles were then collected from the subject’s records. Metacognitive strategies representing the production of external strategies were found to decrease with age (e.g., stzdy habits), while metacognitive strategies representing internal processing increased with age (e.g., muterid ehzborutid, Only the metacognitive strategies assessing more internal processing were significantly related to standard&d verbal and quantitative achievement percentiles. Finally, cognitive word knowledge, explained a significant amount of variance in metacognition total for seventh and tenth

graders, and undergraduates, but in tenth graders only when metacognition was partialled for verbal achievement percentiles. Cognitive words such as think and know are a subdivisionof the internal state lexicon (Hall & Nagy, 1986) and may be central to accessing, monitoring, and transforming our internal states (Scholmck & Hall, 1991). Cognitive words may enable people to understand and interrelate various aspects of their mental functioning (Scholnick & Hall, 1991). Cognitive words may provide a medium that makes it possible to engage in metacognition, that is, to generate goals for reading, communicate the intended meaning of a text, or evaluate one’s level of understanding. Similarly, cognitive words may equip the reader with a vehicle by which to evaluate comprehension strategies critically or to consciously reflect on the logical organization and interdependence of the components of a text. At least, the correct and independent semantic use of cognitive words represents a conscious act of metacognition

2

James R. Booth and William S. Hall

(Hall & Nagy, 1986). Since cognitive words label internal mental states, they may facilitate metacognitive development. More specifically, cognitive word knowledge may enable children to more efficiently derive metacognitive strategies from independent problem solving, social interaction, and instruction, because cognitive words provide pertinent epistemological knowledge. Since many cognitive words have several semantic definitions and pragmatic functions, exposure to this lexicon may facilitate the development of metacognition, that is, the ability to realize that a word is only a symbol for its referent, that context determines the polysemous nature of words, and that language can be an object of thought. Also, children are likely to generalize this knowledge of multiple functions and meanings to other lexical domains, and compare uses within and between lexical domains. The embellishment and enrichment of the different functions and meanings of one cognitive word and/or between cognitive words raises a child’s consciousness of the distinctions these words make and the processes they designate. This leads to greater reflection on, and mastery of, the child’s knowledge system. Cognitive words may provide epistemological knowledge that accelerates this metacognitive development. Despite the commonly accepted relationship between cognitive words and metacognitive strategies (e.g., Olson & Torrance, 1986; Scholnick & Hall, 1991), only one study provides direct, but inconclusive, empirical evidence for their relationship (Olson & Torrance, 1987). The present study sought to remedy this situation by relating cognitive word knowledge, as measured by a multiple-choice task, to

metacognitive strategy use as measured by a self-report Likert scale questionnaire. Furthermore, we expected to confirm the traditionally strong relationship found between certain metacognitive strategies and reading comprehension as measured by verbal achievement percentiles. Unfortunately, any investigation of the development of metacognitive strategies is difficult because, depending on their perspective, different researchers have different conceptions of metacognition. According to Flavell (1976), metacognition generally refers to “one’s knowledge concerning one’s own cognitive processes and products or anything related to them” and includes “the active monitoring and consequent regulation and orchestration of these processes” (p. 232). Later, Brown (1979) divided metacognition into two broad categories: (1) activities that involve conscious reflection on one’s cognitive abilities and activities; and (2) activities that are concerned with “self-regulatory mechanisms during an ongoing attempt to learn or solve problems” (p. 244). Other researchers have focused on more specific aspects of metacognition, such as knowledge of the structure of language (Tumner & Bowey, 1984), memory processes (Schneider, 1985), or strategies and self-regulation during reading. For example, Armbruster, Echols, and Brown (1982) divided metacognitive reading into four levels of awareness: (1) Text metacognition refers to the awareness of the logical organization, intended meaning, and inadequacies of written composition. (2) Task metacognition refers to the ability to change reading based on purpose, select appropriate retrieval cues, and anticipate one’s comprehension. (3) Strategy metacognition

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 18

Metacognition and Cognitive Words

involves the realization that study and comprehension strategies are beneficial to reading. (4) Learner characteristic metacognition refers to the awareness that an individual’s past knowledge is valuable for comprehension. This taxonomy informs the current investigation because it is concerned primarily with strategies employed during reading. Many investigations have examined the development of metacognitive reading and study strategies, and these may be classified into several general categories: alteration of learning based on purpose, elaboration of text, monitoring of learning, use of study habits, detection of main ideas, and organization of knowledge. For example, younger and poor readers do not distribute their study time effectively -- they do not use a successful text reinspection strategy (Gamer, Macready, & Wagoner, 1984; Gamer & Reiss, 1981; Garner, Wagoner, & Smith, 1983; Forrest & Waller, 1980). In contrast, older and good readers distribute their study time appropriately. They spend more time studying unlearned words (Masur, McIntyre, & Flavell, 1973), more difficult texts (Owings, Petersen, Bransford, Morris, & Stein, 1980), and the main ideas of the text (Brown & Smiley, 1978). Many studies also show that younger and poor readers are deficient in main idea detection (e.g., Yussen, Matthews, Buss, & Kane, 1980; Brown & Smiley, 1977; Brown, Smiley, & Lawton, 1978), which appears to be at least partially dependent on the students’ knowledge of how organization affects learning. For example, older and good readers realize that memory varies with the individual and the task demands, that category structure aids memorization, that gist and verbatim recall tasks are

3

different (Kreutzer, Leonard, & Flavell, 1975), that the first and last sentences of a story are of particular significance, and that skimming involves only processing the words that contain the most information (Myers & Paris, 1978). Finally, older and good readers can explain how well-organized and disorganized stories differ, whereas younger children are unaware of the relationship between organization and recall (Danner, 1976). Taken together, this research reveals that younger and poor readers are deficient in their text organization knowledge and main idea detection (Elliot, 1980). Ability and age-related differences also appear frequently in “strategies for understanding’ or text elaboration, but not in “strategies for remembering” or study habits (Baker, 1989). Good, not poor, college readers use internal and high-level text elaboration, such as identifying important ideas, identifying logical relationships in the text, relating information to prior knowledge, and reacting emotionally and critically to the text. In contrast, good and poor college readers have similar proficiency in study habits, such as summarizing, paraphrasing, and underlining words in text (Spring, 1985; Kaufman, Randelett, & Price, 1985). Younger and poor readers use observable low-level strategies for remembering and are often limited to decoding abilities such as pronouncing words correctly, knowing the meaning of words, reading loud fluently, determining whether there were long words, and concentrating on the size of the print (Garner & Kraus, 1981-1982; Myers & Paris, 1978). Many studies also show that younger and poor readers are deficient in monitor learning (Markman, 1977, 1979); they spend less time


4


on anomalous sentences than older and good readers (Harris, Kruithof, Terwogt, & Visser, 1981; August, Flavell, & Clift, 1984). These deficiencies may be the result of the readers’ lack of awareness of their comprehension failure or may come from focusing on the empirical truth, intrasentence consistency, and individual word meaning at the expense of detecting intersentence consistency (Gamer, 1981; Markman & Gorin, 1981; Wagoner, 1983). Even high-school children have difficulty identifying inconsistencies (Otero & Campinario, 1988), and undergraduate college students can only detect about one-third of the errors in a written text, even after being directed to find them (Baker, 1979). However, this error detection seems to depend on content; adults spend more time resolving inconsistencies involving the main point than resolving trivial inconsistencies in detail (Baker & Anderson, 1982). In summary, younger and poor readers seem to be limited to decoding words and detecting intrasentence consistencies. They tend to use strategies for remembering, such as study habits and monitor learning. These are the more productive and external strategies that are often used to alleviate comprehension failure. Furthermore, since these strategies do not guarantee higher levels of reading comprehension, their frequency of use declines with age. In contrast, older and good readers use strategies for understanding, such as material elaboration and personal elaboration. Older and good readers also know that organization affects learning, and can alter learning based on purpose, as well as detect main ideas. So far, we have reviewed some established metacognitive taxonomies and the developmental

course of these metacognitive strategies. However, the illumination of the mechanisms involved in the development of metacognitive strategies will allow an understanding of human development at a deeper level (see Siegler, 1989a). We suggest that metacognitive strategies develop through direct instruction, independent problem solving, and social interaction, as well as through exposure to and use of cognitive words. Most researchers agree that acquisition of metacognitive strategies is dependent on learning experiences (e .g . Pressley , Borkowski, & O’Sullivan, 1985). For example, certain metacognitive strategies improve with direct instruction, and others, such as text reinspection and text summarization are only learned with comprehensive instruction(Gamer & Alexander, 1989). However, the efficacy of these instructional programs depends on the age of the child, the strategy taught, and the domain of strategy application (Palincsar & Brown, 1981, 1984; Paris, Cross, & Lipson, 1984; Paris & Jacobs, 1984; Paris & Oka, 1986; Paris, Saamio, & Cross, 1986). Other metacognitive strategies arise from independent problem solving experiences (Brown & Deloache, 1978). A child’s confrontation with and solution of increasingly complex problems is an important source of metacognitive development. A child learns through trial, error, and insight about the most efficient way to study or to solve a problem. Garner (1987) describes the probable intuitive experiences that many children go through during independent problem solving: “He or she may experience relief about the format of the next day’s quiz; might realize that dates are becoming confused in his or her mind and that a



rehearsal strategy should be employed; and might have an ‘aha’ that boldface topic sentences in the textbook highlight particularly important dates” (p. 39). Finally, social interaction plays a definitive role in metacognitive development (Day, French, & Hall, 1985; Gardner & Rogoff, 1982; Wertsch, 1979, 1985; Wood, 1980). According to Vygotsky (198l), all higher psychological functions develop in social interactions. Children must first use and practice their mental processes -- voluntary attention, logical memory, the formation of concepts, and planning -- in this social context before they can achieve awareness and control over them. Day et al. (1985), after Vygotsky (1962, 1978), summarizes the role that social interaction may play in cognitive development: First, cognitiveabilitiesare socially transmitted. Adults and older peers pass on knowledge and skills required in their culture to children. Second, cognitive abilities are socially constrained. Children employ skills in social interaction that they cannot use when working in isolation. Third, nascent cognitive abilities are socially nurtured. Adult and more expert peers allow children to practice new skills by assuming responsibility for other aspects of the children’s activities.. . . Fourth, independent use of new cognitive abilities is socially encouraged. Adults and more expert peers take on less of the work load as children demonstrate increasing competence. (pp. 33-34)

In conclusion, the efficiency of learning from independent problem solving, social interaction, and direct instruction is likely to interact with learner characteristics, such as cognitive word knowledge. We argue that a

5

child high in cognitive word knowledge may benefit more from these independent learning experiences and from metacognitive skills training than a child low in cognitive word knowledge, because cognitive words label all aspects of metacognitive processes and therefore may facilitate insightful problem solving and strategy discovery. Since cognitive words allow people to access, monitor, and transform their internal states, they may enable people to understand, interrelate, and evaluate various aspects of their mental functioning (Scholnick & Hall, 1991). Cognitive words are an episternological content knowledge that may expedite metacognitive development. Garner and Alexander (1989) have encouraged researchers of metacognition to concentrate more on the relationship between content knowledge and metacognition. Three findings may provide insight into the relationship between cognitive word knowledge and metacognition. First, content knowledge may be essential for learning effectively in a domain. For example, pertinent prior knowledge enhances the magnitude, organization, and accessibility of information within that domain (Robinowitz & Glaser, 1985), and allows the reader to detect, process, and retain the important ideas in a text in an organized way. (McDaniel & Einstein, 1989; Recht & Leslie, 1988). Second, content knowledge in a domain is necessary for efficient strategy use (e.g., detecting inconsistencies) and may be necessary for strategy instruction in that domain (Alexander, Pate, Kulikowich, Farrell, & Wright, 1988; Borkowski, Carr, & Pressley, 1987; Bransford & Heldmeyer, 1983; Brown & Palincsar, 1985; Bymes & Wasik, 1991; Hasselhom & Korkel, 1986; Siegler, 1989b).

NATIONALREADING RESEARCH CENTER,READINGRJZSEARCH REPORT NO. 18

6


Third, strategic processing changes as knowledge in a domain increases (Alexander & Judy, 1988). High content knowledge as opposed to low content knowledge is generally accompanied by more abstract problem representations (Voss, Blais, Means, Greene, & Ahwesh, 1986) and a tendency to categorize or classify problems on the basis of underlying concepts or principles (Adelson, 1981; Shoenfeld & Herrmann, 1982). Since cognitive words label all types of metacognitive acts and much of learning occurs through the oral mode, these words may provide a necessary epistemological knowledge allowing more efficient acquisition of metacognitive strategies from learning experiences. The present study had three aims: (1) to investigate the developmental trajectory of different metacognitive strategies, (2) to determine how these metacognitive strategies related to verbal achievement percentiles, and (3) to determine whether cognitive word knowledge explained a significant amount of variance in the metacognitive total over and above the variance explained by the verbal achievement percentiles. METHOD Subjects Participants represented elementary, middleschool, high-school, and college levels. The grade-school students attended separate single gender private schools in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. There were 33 fifth graders (M = 11.3; SD = 0.5), 32 seventh graders (M = 12.7; SD = 0.4), and 21 tenth graders (M = 15.6; SD = 0.5). The mean ages of the

males and females within grades were not significantly different; therefore, their data were combined for presentation. The 70 college students (M = 19.9; SD = 1.6) attended the University of Maryland and participated in the study to fulfill an Introductory Psychology course requirement. All but two of the students completed the study. Materials Standardized achievement percentiles. The latest Educational Records Bureau (ERB) independent school norm percentiles were obtained from the school records of the gradeschool students. The ERB percentiles included verbal (combined vocabulary and reading comprehension) and quantitative scores. All percentiles were obtained by a method that ensured anonymity and confidentiality. The college students supplied their percentiles on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and their grade point averages (GPAs) with documentation (i.e., academic transcript and SAT score stub). The SAT percentiles included the verbal (combined vocabulary and reading comprehension) and quantitative categories. Metacognition task. The metacognition task was adapted from the Weinstein, Zimmerman, and Palmer (1988) Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI) and the S&neck (1983) Inventory of Learning Processes (ILP, see also Schmeck, 1988; Scbmeck, Ribich, & Ramanaiab, 1977). Certain categories were adapted from the ILP (e.g., str@ metho&, elaborative processing/synthesis-analysis), whereas others were ignored (e.g., fact retention). Likewise, certain categories were adapted from the LASS1 (e.g., time management,

NATIONALREADINGRESEiARCHCENTER,READINGRE!EARCHREPORTNO.

18


information processing, selecting main ideas, study aids, self-testing, and test strategies), whereas others were ignored (e.g., attitude, motivation, and concentration). Certain categories were not included in our metacognition task because they did not characterize metacognitive strategies and/or were ability measures. Our revised metacognition task included eight new conceptually distinct subscores (see Appendix A for a list of all the items). The following are the six metacognitive strategies emphasizing internal processing. Alter learning refers to the adjustment of study practices depending on amount and kind of material. Material elaboration refers to predicting the outcome, identifying patterns, and relating and integrating ideas within the material. Personal elaboration refers to relating material to personal experiences or past knowledge. Main ideas refers to the knowledge of the usefulness of and the ability to detect main ideas in material. Organization refers to the knowledge that: (1) the structure of material, such as organization or disorganization and similar groupings, affects learning; (2) information within and between paragraphs is of varying importance; and (3) italics, bold print, and headings provide a framework for learning. Solving problems refers to the method of answering questions and the knowledge of how well one has done. The more external and productive metacognitive strategies are study habits and monitor learning. Study habits refers to: (1) the active production of study aids, such as charts, diagrams, acronyms, tables, summaries, and outlines; (2) accessing of external sources of information, such as dictionaries, books, and people; (3) reviewing notes, homework, and

7

sample problems in assigned readings; and (4) grouping similar terms together when learning. Monitor learning refers to checking to see whether learning is occurring and studying to answer self-formulated questions. Cognitive word task. The cognitive word task was modeled after Astington and Olson (1990) and consisted of 24 short stories (four to seven sentences). Each cognitive word passage was syntactically and semantically simple to ensure the assessment of cognitive word knowledge primarily, not reading comprehension abilities. Twelve stories contained the cognitive word think, and twelve contained the cognitive word know. Of those twelve stories, two stories characterized each of the six levels of meaning for think and know (Frank & Hall, 1991). Of those two stories, there was one story with a low-frequency and one with a high-frequency replacement cognitive word. Each replacement cognitive word was contained within one of four multiple-choice sentences after the passage. Given the context of the story, the subject had to choose the replacement cognitive word that accurately represented the level of meaning of think or know in the passage. The following are examples of passages involving a low-frequency replacement cognitive word representing the perception level of think (#l), and a high-frequency replacement cognitive word representing the metacognition level for know (#2). (See Booth and Hall, in press, for detailed information regarding the cognitive word task development). (1) Jeff just received a new dog and dog whistle for his birthday. Whenever Jeff blows the whistle his dog comes to him. The whistle is so high pitched that Jeff cannot

NATIONALREADING RESEARCH CENTEX,READINGRESEARCH REPORT NO. 18

8


hear it. Dogs can hear high pitch sounds that people cannot hear. Dogs have better ears than people. The dog knows when the whistle blows. (A) The dog comprehencis when the whistle blows. (E3) The dog recalls when the whistle blows. (C) The dog apprehends when the whistle blows. (D) The dog perceives when the whistle blows. (2) Georgia sees an animal at the zoo that she has seen before. Her friend Cynthia asks her what it is called. Georgia calls it a Cheetah. Cynthia says, ‘No, it is a Hyena.’ Georgia knows why she called it a Cheetah and not a Hyena. Both animals have spots and their names sound the same. (A) Georgia assumed this is the reason she called the animal a Cheetah. (B) Georgia bet this is the reason she called the animal a Cheetah. (C) Georgia expected this is the reason she called the animal a Cheetah. (D) Georgia refrected on why she called the animal a Cheetah. Procedure The cognitive word task and the metacognition task were administered to groups of fifth graders, seventh graders, and tenth graders in their regnlarly scheduled classes and to the undergraduate students in a group setting at the University of Maryland. The cognitive word

task was administered immediately before the metacognition task. The experimenter read the instructions aloud; these were printed on the first page of the task booklet. The instructions read: This metacognition task is designed to gather information about your learning and studying practices. You are to read each statement and then circle the response that best describes you: not at all like me, not very like me, somewhat like me, fairly like me, or very much like me. By not at all like me, we do not mean that the statement would never describe you, but that it would be true of you only in rare cases. By not very like me, we mean that the statement would be generally not true of you. By somewhat like me, we mean that the statement would be true of you about half the time. By fairly like me, we mean the statement would be generally true of you. By very much like me, we do not mean that the statement would always describe you, but that it would be true of you almost all of the tune. Try to rate yourself according to how well the statement describes you, not in terms of how you think you should be or what others do. The experimenter then answered all questions the students asked. Students were given a maximum of 25 minutes to complete each of the two tasks. All subjects finished within the allotted time. If all of the students completed the cognitive word task in less than 25 minutes, the administration of the metacognition task was begun. In order to determine the reliability of the metacognition task, alpha coefficients and itemtotal correlations were computed for total and subscores. For the metacognition task, reliability analysis indicated that all categories except organization (a = .49) and solving problems

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESBARCH REPORT NO. 18


9

((Y = .46) were sufficiently reliable (see Table 1). As a rule, reliability of Q = .60 or greater is recommended for basic research (Nunnally, 1978), but considering the exploratory nature of this research, both organization and solving problems were included in subsequent analyses. The overall reliability of the metacognition task was high (a! = .68).

cognitive strategies and achievement percentiles, and (3) to determine the relationship between cognitive word knowledge and metacognitive strategies. Results will be presented in that order.

RESULTS

Since the academic ability of grade-school students was statistically similar, student selection biases could not have accounted for any observed developmental differences. One-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) with verbal, quantitative, vocabulary, and reading compre-

There were three main goals of this investigation: (1) to determine the developmental course of certain types of metacognitive strategies, (2) to determine the relationship between meta-

Developmental Course of Metacognitive strategies

NATIONAL READING RESARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 18

10


hension achievement percentiles revealed no significant differences between the fifth graders, seventh graders, and tenth graders, (all fs < 1.22, ps > .30). Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations for the ERB independent school norm percentiles for the gradeschool students and the SAT percentiles for the college students. The means (and standard deviations) for the metacognition categories measured on a five-point Likert scale are presented by grade in Table 3. In order for certain items to represent theirmetacognitive category appropriately, the scale of these items was reversed so that a score of 1 indicated not characteristic while a

score of 5 indicated highly characteristic of that category. In order to confirm our predictions of developmental differences in the eight metacognitive categories, a 4 x 8 (Grade x Metacognitive Category) ANOVA was computed with Grade as a between-subjects factor and Metacognitive Category as a repeated measures factor. This analysis revealed significant main effects for Metacognitive Category, F(7,151) = 46.00, p .05. Neither was the difference in the metacognition total correlation with vocabulary (r = .35) as compared with reading comprehension (r = .38), t(l50) = 0.67, p> .05. For the undergraduates, GPA significantly correlated with metacognition total (r = .42, p< .OOl). More specifically, GPA was significantly correlated with main ideas (r = .46), material elaboration (r = .29), organization (r = .27), and solving problems (r = .29). The correlations of verbal achievement percentiles, quantitative achievement percentiles, and cognitive word total with the metacognitive categories are presented in Tables 6, 7, and 8, respectively. For all groups, the correlation of verbal achievement percentiles correlated significantly with alter learning (r = .22), material elaboration (r = .28), personal

elaboration (r = .24), main ideas (r = .24), organization (r = .17), and solving problems (r = .21). In contrast, monitor learning (r = .08) and study habits (r = .02) were not significantly correlated with verbal achievement percentiles. The correlation involving verbal achievement percentiles with material elaboration, personal elaboration, main ideas, and solving problems was statistically higher than that with study habits (ts > 1.95, ps < .05), and the correlation involving verbal achievement percentiles with material elaboration (t[ 13 l] = 2.21,p .05). The same patterns appear to hold for the correlation of the different metacognitive strategies with quantitative achievement percentiles and cognitive word total (see Tables 7 & 8). Due to the low correlations between monitor learning and s&y habits with achievement percentiles, these two metacognitive categories were dropped from the metacognition total for all analyses. To investigate whether the correlations of metacognition total with the verbal achievement percentiles tended to increase with age (see Tables 6, 7, & 8), these correlations were computed for the fifth graders and seventh graders combined together and also for the tenth graders and undergraduates combined together. The increase in these correlations with age was significant for material elaboration (r = .12 to r = .38, ~(75) = 1 . 6 5 , p C .05), personal elaboration (r = -.04 to r = .38, ~(75) = 2.59, p < .Ol), organization (r = -.Ol to r = .27, ~(75) = 1.69,pC .05), moni

NATIONALREADINGRESEARCHCENTER,READINGRESEARCHREPORTNO.

18

16


NATIONAL REAJXNG RJSEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 18


tor learning (r = -.14 to r = .14, ~(75) = 1.66, p< .05), and slightly higher for stz&y habits (r = .-.08 to r = .18, ~(75) = 1.54, p < . 10). The remaining correlations were not significantly different (all zs < 1 S4, ps > .OS). This increase in the magnitude of the correlations suggests that the older children were either more able to determine accurately how often they engaged in metacognitive strategies, or were more successful at applying metacognitive strategies during learning situations, Relationship Between Cognitive Word Knowledge and Metacognitive Strategies In our linguistic theory of metacognitive development, we suggested that cognitive words may provide a unique and essential epistem-

ological knowledge that enables children to derive metacognitive strategies efficiently from learning experiences. However, critics may argue that the cognitive word task may just be measuring general verbal abilities rather than a unique, metacognitive epistemological knowledge. In support of this, Booth and Hall (in press) found that verbal achievement percentiles correlated highly with cognitive word total (r = .47 for fifth graders, r = .15 for seventh graders, r = .34 for tenth graders, and r = .55 for undergraduates). In order to distinguish between these two interpretations, hierarchical regressionanalyses were computed. In these analyses, the amount of variance in the dependent metacognition total, after entry of verbal achievement percentiles, explained by cognitive word total only

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RFSEARCH RJZPORT NO. 18

18


rose significantly for the tenth graders (rw = .50, p< .05), and the amount of variance explained tended to rise for seventh graders (rputLI = .33, p < . 10). None of the metacognitive categories that were entered into the regression equation on the second step, except cognitive word total, explained a significant amount of variance. These analyses provided mixed support for the assertion that cognitive word knowledge provides a unique epistemological knowledge that may enhance metacognitive strategy acquisition. DISCUSSION In summary, several important findings emerged from this study. First, metacognitive strategies representing the production of external strategies, such as study habits and monitor learning decreased with age, while metacognitive strategies representing internal processing, such as material elaboration and alter learning increased with age. Furthermore, only the metacognitive strategies assessing enhanced internal processing were significantly related to verbal and quantitative achievement percentiles, and the magnitude of this relationship increased with age. Finally, cognitive word knowledge was significantly related to metacognitive strategies, but only for the tenth graders was cognitive word knowledge significantly related to metacognition partialled for verbal achievement percentiles. There appeared to be two broad categories of metacognitive strategies: one that characterized reflective internal processing and one that involved the production of study aids and monitoring techniques. This claim was supported by the high correlation between personal

elaboration and material elaboration, and between study habits and monitor learning (see Table 4). This dissociation is further supported by the finding that the internal strategies significantly increased or were maintained with age, while external, productive, metacognitive strategies decreased with age. The students may have abandoned monitor Learning and study habits because the application of these external study habits and monitoring techniques did not guarantee text comprehension or academic success. For all groups, monitor learning and study habits were not significantly correlated with verbal achievement percentiles (rs< .08; see Table 6). On the other hand, strategies indicative of internal elaboration and reflection on the learning process were highly correlated with enhanced reading comprehension (TS < .16; see Table 6). Therefore, these strategies may have been maintained or increased in application. The decrease of monitor learning with age may seem counterintuitive. However, many of the procedures in monitor learning, such as answering self-generated questions, are laborintensive and do not guarantee academic success. Very little research has been done on the frequency with which readers engage in monitor learning activities, but we suggest that younger and poor readers may engage in these activities more often because they have to employ these procedures more frequently to accommodate for comprehension failure or inadequate learning practices. Even though good readers may be more proficient at monitor learning (Markman, 1977, 1979; Harris et al., 1981; August et al., 1984; Garner, 1981; Wagoner, 1983), the ability to engage effectively in these procedures may be very differ-

NATIONALREADINGRESEARCH CENTER,READING RESARCHREPORTNO. 18


ent from employing these techniques during studying and reading. Our results also support past research on the development of metacognitive strategies that children use during reading. In general, younger and poor readers seem to be limited to the decoding of words and detecting intrasentence consistencies (Gamer & Kraus, 19811982). They tend to use strategies for remembering, such as the application of study habits (Kaufman et al., 1985), and methods for monitoring learning (Baker, 1989). In contrast, older and good readers tend to use strategies for understanding, such as material elaboration, personal elaboration (Spring, 1985), and main idea detection (Brown & Smiley, 1977). Older and good readers also have the ability to alter learning based on purpose (Forrest & Waller, 1980), and know that organization affects learning (Danner, 1976). It is becoming increasingly evident that metacognition is essential for the development of skilled reading comprehension (see Hall, 1989; Forrest-Pressley & Waller, 1984). Many studies have shown a strong correlation between metacognition and reading comprehension (Forrest-Pressley, Waller, & Pressley, 1989; Byrd & Gholson, 1985; Armbruster et al., 1982); that training in metacognition enhances reading comprehension (Palincsar & Brown, 1981, 1984; Paris, Wasik, & Van der Westhuizen, 1988; Paris & Jacobs, 1984); and that instruction in metacognition is essential for learning to occur efficiently (Palincsar & Brown, 1987, 1988; Paris et al., 1984, 1986; Hallahan, 1987; Reeve & Brown, 1985). The present investigation provides further support for the previous finding that metacognitive strategies are essential for high-level text

19

understanding. The correlations of metacognition total with verbal (r = .39) and quantitative (r = .26) achievement percentiles were significant. Exploratory data analysis was performed to discover some specific metacognitive strategies characteristic of a person who has high verbal achievement. The eleven metacognition statements that had a high correlation (rs > .18, ps < .Ol) with verbal achievement percentiles were combined. This subscale had a high alpha coefficient reliability (01 = .71) and a high average interitem correlation (r = .18). This subscale was also highly correlated with verbal (r = .51, p< .OOl), vocabulary (r = .39, p< .OOl), reading comprehension (r = .43, p < .OOl), and quantitative (r = .35, p < .OOl) achievement percentiles. The metacognitive statements that had the highest correlations with verbal achievement percentiles can be summarized as follows. Some students try to find patterns, fit information together logically, relate ideas to each other and with what they have already learned, do not ignore conflicts of information, and put ideas in their own words. Other students successfully summarize material, concentrate on certain parts of chapters, and read homework assignments or sample problems when studying. Finally, some students study material differently, depending on how far off the test is, and read differently when studying for a test than when reading for fun (see Appendix A). CONCLUSION Although a proliferation of researchers have related cognitive word knowledge to metacognition theoretically, only one study has attempt-

NATIONALREADINGRESEARCHCENTER,READINGRESEARCHREPORT

NO. 18

20


ed to relate them empirically (Olson & Torrance, 1987). That attempt was unsuccessful Our study provides mixed support for the assertion that cognitive word knowledge is important for enhancing metacognitive development. For all groups, the correlation of cognitive word total with metacognition total was high (r = .36, p< .Ol). However, in hierarchical regression analyses, the amount of variance in the dependent metacognition total (after entry of verbal achievement percentiles) explained by cognitive word total only rose significantly for the tenth graders, and the amount of variance explained rose for the seventh graders. The relationship of cognitive word knowledge to metacognitive strategies may be accounted for mostly on the basis of verbal ability. However, there is some evidence that cognitive word knowledge contains an additional source of variance that explains differences in the development of metacognitive strategies. Most current research holds that language and thought influence each other and that this influence changes with development. For example, Piaget (1969) and then Clark (1983) proffered that cognitive development paces linguistic development so that with age, language becomes increasingly influential in cognitive development. Clark (1983) states that initially: Words simply flag concepts -- they serve to evoke them -- and learning meanings of words is a matter of learning which concept or concepts each word conventionally picks out within a specific language community (p. 797). . . . But as soon as children

have acquired some language, the relating of words to concepts must become more of a two-way street, so that contrasting conceptual categories can trigger a search for contrasting words and exposure to words can trigger a search for pertinent conceptual contrasts. (p. 82 1) In order to determine the causal relation between cognitive word knowledge and metacognitive development, future research should consist of training studies in which the children’s cognitive word knowledge is enhanced, and subsequent observation taken of his or her high-level text understanding and metacognitive acquisition in a variety of learning environments. This assertion is supported by Paul and O’Rourke’s (1988) suggestion that teachers must be more aware of these multimeaning words and perhaps include direct vocabulary instruction in their programs. We suggest that children with high cognitive word knowledge, as compared to those with low cognitive word knowledge, may be more likely to extract, process, and recall the metacognitive information they encounter in texts in an organized way (see McDaniel & Einstein, 1989; Alexander & Judy, 1988; Recht & Leslie, 1988). Because this metacognitive information is gleaned more effectively from reading experiences, children may learn reading strategies faster and earlier in life. Furthermore, children may be more likely to maintain and generalize these reading strategies because cognitive words allow children to describe under what conditions metalinguistic activities are successful, why they are successful, and how they may be used in solving problems.

NATIONALREADlNGRESEARCHCENTER,READINGRESEARCH

REPORTNO. 18

21


Authors’ Note. This research was supported by grant #01-4-32735 from the OERI to William S. Hall and James R. Booth of the National Reading Research Center. We thank Tom Anderson, Linda Baker, and the anonymous reviewers for very helpful critical comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. We also thank administrators at Landon School and Holton-Arms School for their organizational assistance and their students for volunteering to participate in this investigation. Please address all correspondence to William S. Hall, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742. REFERENCES Adelson, B. ( 198 1). Problem solving and the development of abstract categories in programming languages. Mematy and Cognition, 9.422-433. Alexander, J. A., & Judy, J. E. (1988). The interaction of domain-specific knowledge and strategic knowledge in academic performance. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 375-404. Alexander, P. A., Pate, P. E., Kulikowich, J. M., Farrell, D., & Wright, N. (1988, April). Domain-specific and strategic knowledge: Effects of explicit training on students of differing ages and competence levels. In R. Garner (Chair), The interaction of domain-specific and strategic knowledge in academic pe@omtance. Symposium conducted at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. Armbruster, B. B., Echols, C. H., & Brown, A. L. (1982). The role of metacognition in reading to learn. Volta Review, 84(5), 45-56. Astington, J. W., Olson, D. R. (1990). Metacognitive and metalinguistic language: Learning to

talk about thought. Applied Psychology: An lntemational Review, 39(l), 77-87. August, D. L., Flavell, J. H., & Clift, R. (1984). Comparison of comprehension monitoring skills in skilled and less skilled readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 39-53. Baker, L. (1989). Metacognition, comprehension monitoring, and the adult reader. Educational Psychology Review, I(l), 3-38. Baker, L. (1979). Comprehension monitoring: Identifying and coping with text confusions. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11, 365-374. Baker, L., & Anderson, R. I. (1982). Effects of inconsistent information on text processing: Evidence for comprehension monitoring. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 281-194. Booth, J. R., Hall, W. S. (1994). The relationship of reading comprehension to the cognitive internal state lexicon. Journal of Educational Psychology, in press. Borkowski, J. G., Carr, M., & Pressley, M. ( 1987). “Spontaneous ” strategy use: Perspectives from metacognitive theory. Intelligence, II, 61-75. Bransford, J. D., & Heldmeyer, K. (1983). Learning from children learning. In J. Bisanz, G. L. Bisanz, & R. Kail (Eds.), Learning in children: Progress in cognitive development research (pp. 171-190). New York: Springer Verlag. Brown, A. L. (1979). Reflections on metacognition! Discussants comments. Paper presented at Society for Research in Child Development, San Francisco, CA. Brown, A. L., & DeLoache, J. (1978). Skills, plans, and self-regulation. InR. S. Siegler (Ed.), Children’s thinking: What develops. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Brown, A. L., 8c Palincsar, A. S. (1985). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension strategies: A natural of one program for enhancing learning.

NATIONALREADINGRESEARCHCENTER,REAJXNGRESEARCHREFQRTNO.

18

22


(Tech. Rep. No. 334). Urbana: University of Illinois, The Center for the Study of Reading. Brown, A. L., & Smiley , S. S. (1978). The development of strategies for studying texts. Child Development, 49, 1076-1088. Brown, A. L., & Smiley , S. S. (1977). Rating the important of structural units of prose passages: A problem of metacognition development. Child Development, 48, 1-8. Brown, A. L., Smiley, S. S., & Lawton, S. C. (1978). The effect of experience on the selection of suitable retrieval cues for studying texts. Child Development, 49, 829-835. Byrd, D. M., & Gholson, B. (1985). Reading, memory, and metacognition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(4), 428-436. Bymes, J. P., & Wasik, B. A. (1991). Role of conceptual knowledge in mathematical procedural learning. Developmental Psychology, 27(5), 777-786. Clark, E. V. (1983). Meanings and Concepts. In J. H. Flavell & E. M. Markman (Eds.), The Handbook of Child Psychology, (pp. 787840). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Danner, F. W. (1976). Children’s understanding of inter-sentence organization in recall of short descriptive passages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 174- 183. Day, J. D., French, L. A., & Hall, K. L. (1985). Social influences on cognitive development. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. MacKinnon, &T. G. Waller (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, and human performance: Theoretical perspectives (Pp. 33-56). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Elliot, S. N. (1980) Sixth grade and college students ’ metacognitive knowledge ofprose organization and study strategies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.

Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In. L. B. Rest&k (Ed.), Z%e nature of intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Forrest, D. L., & Waller, T. G. (1980, April). What do children know about their reading and study skills? Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA. Forrest-Pressley, D. L., & Waller. T. G. (1984). Cognition, Metacognition, and Reading. New York: Springer-Verlag. Forrest-Pressley, D. L., Waller, T. G., Pressley, M. (1989). Forrest-Pressley and Waller concluded that metacognition about reading is related to reading performance: A comment about Jacobs and Paris (1987). Educational Psychologist, 24(2), 207-210. Frank, R. E., & Hall, W. S. (1991). Polysemy and the acquisition of the cognitive internal state lexicon. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20(4), 283-304. Gardner, W., & Rogoff, B. (1982). The role of instruction in memory development: Some methodological choices. The Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 4, 6-12. Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Not-wood, NJ: Ablex. Garner, R. ( 198 1). Monitoring of passage inconsistency among poor comprehenders: A preliminary test of the “piecemeal processing” explanation. Journal of Educational Research, 74, 55-64. Garner, R., & Alexander, P. A. (1989). Metacognition: Answered and unanswered questions. Educational Psychologist, 24(2), 143-158. Garner, R., & Kraus, C. (1981-1982). Good and poor comprehender differences in knowing and

NATIONALREADINGRESEARCH CENTER,REAJXNGRESEARCHREF'ORTNO.

18


regulating readmg behaviors. Eifucutional Research Quarterly, 6, 5-12. Garner, R., Macready, G. B., & Wagoner, S. (1984). Readers’ acquisition of the components of the text-lookback strategy. Reading Research Quarterly, 76, 300-309. Garner, R., & Reiss, R. (1981). Monitoring and resolving comprehension obstacles: An investigation of spontaneous text lookbacks among upper-grade good and poor comprehenders. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 569-582. Garner, R., & Wagoner, S., & Smith, T. (1983). Externalizing question-answering strategies of good and poor comprehenders. Reading Research Quarterly, 18.439-447. Hall, W. S. (1989). Readingcomprehension. American Psychologist, 44(2), 157-161. Hall, W. S., & Nagy, W. E. (1987). The semantic-pragmatic distinction in internal state words: The role of the situation. Discourse Processes, 10(2), 169-180. Hall, W. S., & Nagy, W. E. (1986). Theoretical issues in the investigation of the words of internal report. In I. Gopnik & M. Gopnik (Eds.), From models to modules: Studies in cognitive science from the McGill workshops (pp. 26-65). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Hallahan, D. P. (1987). Commentary on Palincsar and Brown’s “Enhancing instructional time through attention to metacognition”. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20(3), 169- 170. Harris, P. L., Kruithof, A., Terwogt, M. M., & Visser, T. (1981). Children’s detection and awareness of textual anomaly. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 31, 212-230. Hasselhom, M., & Korkel, J. (1986). Metacognitive versus traditional reading instructions: The mediating role of domain-specific knowledge on

23

children’s text processing. Human Learning, 5, 75-90. Kaufman, N. J., Randelett, A. L., & Price, J. (1985). Awareness of the use of comprehension strategies in good and poor college readers. Reading Psychologist, 6, l- 11. Kreutzer, M. A., Leonard, C., & Flavell, J. H. (1975). An interview study of children’s knowledge of memory. Monographs of the society for research in child development, 40 (1, Serial No. 149). Markman, E. M. (1979). Realizing that you don’t understand: Elementary school children’s awareness of inconsistencies. Child Development, 50, 643-655. Markman, E. M. (1977). Realizing that you don’t understand: A preliminary investigation. Child Development, 48, 986-992. Markman, E. M., 8t Gorin, L. (1981). Children’s ability to adjust their standards for evaluating comprehension. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 73, 320-325. Masur, E. F., McIntyre, C. W., & Flavell, J. H. (1973). Developmental changes in the apportionment of study time among items in multitrial free recall task. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 15. 237-246. McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. 0. (1989). Material appropriate processing: A contextualist approach to reading and studying strategies. Educational Psychology Review, l(2), 113-145. Myers, M., dc Paris, S. G. (1978). Children’s metacognitive knowledge about reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70,680-690. Nmmally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Olson, D. R., & Torrance, N. G. (1987). Language, literacy, and mental states. Discourse Processes, 20, 157-168.

NATIONALREADINGRESEARCHCENTER,READINGRJSEARCH

REPORTNO. 18

24


Olson, D. R., & Torrance, N. G. (1986). Some relations between children’s knowledge of metalinguistic and metacognitive verbs and their linguistic competencies. In I. Gopnik & M. Gopnik (Eds.), From models to modules: Studies in cognitive science from the McGill workshops (pp. 66-81). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Otero, J. C., & Campinario, J. M. (1988). Comprehension evaluation and regulation in learning from science texts. Unpublished manuscript, University of Alcala, Madrid. Owings R. A., Petersen, G. A., Bransford, J. D., Morris, C. D., & Stein, B. S. (1980). Spontaneous monitoring and regulation of learning: A comparison of successful and less successful fifth graders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 250-256. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1988). Teaching and practicing thinking skills to promote comprehension in the context of group problem solving. Special Issue: The challenge of reading and understanding in intermediate grades. RQSE Remedial and Special Education, 9(l), 53-59. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1987). Enhancing instructional time to attention to metacognition. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20(2). 66-75. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, Z(2), 117-175. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1981). Training comprehension-monitoring skills in an interactive leaminggame. Unpublishedmanuscript, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana. Paris, S. G., Cross, D. R., & Lipson, M. Y. (1984). Informed strategies for learning: A program to improve children’s reading and comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1239-1252.

Paris, S. G., & Jacobs, J. E. (1984). The benefits of informed instruction for children’s reading awareness and comprehension skills. Child Development, 55, 2083-2093. Paris, S. G., & Oka, E. R. (1986). Children’s reading strategies, metacognition, and motivation. Developmental Review, 6, 25-56. Paris, S. G., Saamio, D. A., & Cross, D. R. (1986). A metacognitive curriculum to promote children’s learning and reading. Australian Journal of Psychology, 38(2), 107- 123. Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Van der Westhuizen, G. (1988). Meta-metacognition: A review of research on metacognition and reading. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 37, 143-166. Paul, P. V., O’Rourke, J. P. (1988). Multimeaning words and reading comprehension: Implications for special education students. Remedial and Special Education, 9(3), 42-52. Piaget, J. (1969). The language and thought of the child. (3rd. Ed.) London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G., & O’Sullivan, J. (1985). Children’s metamemory and the teaching of memory strategies. In D. L. Forrest Pressley , G. E. MacKinnon, & T. G. Waller (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, and human performance: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 1 1 1 - 153). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Rabinowitz, M., & Glaser, R. (1985). Cognitive structure and process in highly competent performance. InF. D. Horowitz&M. O’Brien(Eds.), The gifted and the talented: A developmental perspective (pp. 75-98). WashingtonDC: American Psychological Association. Recht, D. R., 8c Leslie, L. (1988). Effect of prior knowledge on good and poor readers’ memory of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 16-20. Reeve, R. A., & Brown, A. L. (1985). Metacognition reconsidered: Implications for intervention

NATIONALREADINGRESFARCHCENTER,READINGRESEARCHREPORTNO.

18


research. Special Issue: Cognitive-behavior modification with children: A critical review of state-of-the-art. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13(3), 343-356. Schmeck, R. R. (1988). Individual differences in learning strategies. In C. E. Weinstein & E. T. Goetz (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation (pp. 171-191). SanDiego, CA: Academic Press. S&neck, R. R. (1983). Learning styles of college students. In R. F. Dillon & R. R. S&neck (Eds.), Zndividual differences in cognition (pp. 233-279). New York: Academic Press. S&neck, R. R., Ribich, F., & Ramanaiah, N. (1977). Development of a self-report inventory for assessing individual differences in learning processes. Applied Psychological Measurement, I, 413-431. Schneider, W. (1985). Developmental trends in the metamemory-memory behavior relationship: An integrative review. In D. L. Forrest Pressley, G. E. MacKhmon, & T. G. Waller (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, and human pe@ormance: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 57- 109). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Scholnick, E. K., & Hall, W. S. (1991). The language of thinking: Metacognitive and conditional words. In J. P. Bymes & S. A. Gelman (as.), Perspectives on language and cognition: Znterrelations in development. New York: Cambridge University Press. Shoenfeld, A. H., & Herrmann, D. J. (1982). Problem perception and knowledge structure in expert and novice mathematical problem solvers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 8,484-494. Siegler, R. S. (1989a). Mechanisms of cognitive development. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 353-379. Siegler, R. S. (1989b). How domain-general and domain-specific knowledge interact to produce

25

strategy choices. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 35(l), l-26. Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87,245-251. Spring, C. (1985). Comprehension and study strategies reported by university freshman who are good and poor readers. Znstruction Science, 14, 157-167. Tumner, W. E., & Bowey, J. A. (1984). Metalinguistic awareness and language acquisition. In W. E. Tumner, C. Pratt, & M. C. Herriman (Eds.), Metalinguistic awareness in children: Theory, research, and implications (pp. 144168). New York: Springer-Verlag. Voss, J. F., Blais, J., Means, M. L., Greene, T. R., & Ahwesh, E. (1986). Infotmational reasoning and subject matter in the solving of economics problems by naive and novice individuals, Cognition and Instruction, 3, 269-302. Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activiq in Soviet psychology. Armonk, NY: Sharpe. Vygotslq, L. S. (1978). In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, S. Scribner, 8~ E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and Zanguage. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wagoner, S. A. (1983). Comprehension monitoring: What it is and what we know about it. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 328-346. Weinstein, C. E., Zimmerman, S. A., & Palmer, D. R. (1988). Assessing learning strategies: The design and development of the LASSI. In C. E. Weinstein & E. T. Goetz (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation (pp. 25-40). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REF’ORT NO. 18

26


Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Adult-child interaction as a source of self-regulation in children. In S. R. Yussen (Ed.), The growth of reflection in children. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Wertsch, J. V. (1979). From social interaction to higher psychological processes: A clarification and application of Vygotsky’s theory. Human Development, 22, l-22. Wood, D. J. (1980). Teaching the young child some relationships between social interaction, language, and thought. In D. R. Olson (Ed.), The social foundations of language and thought: Essays in honor of Jerome S. Bruner (pp. 280 -296). New York: Norton. Yussen, S. R., Matthews, S. R., Buss, R. R., & Kane, P. T. (1980) Developmental changes in judging important and critical elements of stories. Developmental Psychology, 16, 213-219.

2.

APPENDIX A

2.

METACOGNITION STATEMENTS BY EACH CATEGORY AND THEHX CORRELATION ACROSS ALL GRADES COMBINED WITH VERBAL ACHIEVEMENT PERCENTILES

3.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7.

Personal Elaboration 1.

4. 5.

Alter Learning 1.

I use the same amount of effort for different types of studying or reading (r = . 11). 2. My studying methods are the same no matter how much material I have to learn (r = . 11). 3. When studying, I put the same amount of effort into all the material we have been given (r = .05). 4. I study material differently depending on how far off the test is (r = .23, p < .Ol).

6.

Material Elaboration

2.

1.

I try to find patterns among ideas when I am studyingorreading(r = .21,p