The assessment of metacognition in children aged 4–16 years: a systematic review

Abstract

This article presents the results of a systematic review of methods that have been used to measure or assess metacognition in children aged 4–16 years over a 20‐year period (1992–2012). It includes an overview of the types of tool and methods used linked with the ages of the participants targeted and how metacognition and associated concepts are defined. Two thousand, seven hundred and twenty‐one records were identified through systematic searching; 525 articles or reports were full text screened, resulting in 149 included studies reporting 84 distinct tools or methods. Of these 84 distinct tools or methods, four were excluded from further analysis after appraisal for reliability, validity and replicability. The final number of methods and tools for metacognitive assessment included in the analysis is 80. The key findings of this review include: Self‐report measures (including questionnaires, surveys and tests) comprise 61% of the included tools; Observational methods that do not rely on prompting to ‘think aloud’ (Think Aloud Protocols) have only been used with students aged 9 years and under; Information about reliability and validity is not always given or given accurately for different tools and methods; The definition of metacognition in a particular study relates directly to its assessment and therefore its outcomes: this can be misaligned.

Learning from learning logs: A case study of metacognition in the primary school classroom

“…We found that Laura tended to provide relatively superficial responses to prompts—prompts that were themselves relatively broad and procedural. More widely, this finding highlights the close association between the tools of measurement of metacognition and the way that metacognition is judged resultantly (Desoete, ; Gascoine et al ., ).…”

“…Amy may not have been able to express herself in writing, and may not have developed the language of thinking and learning required to express herself in the ways that these STAs demand. More broadly, this finding again highlights that the evidence of metacognition is ultimately bound within the tool of measurement (Gascoine et al ., ).…”

“…They also require a suspension of current goals, in favour of the goals of the past, or goals for the future. Thus, while our findings clearly highlight that pupils can indeed think about and manage their own thinking, this understanding of pupil development is necessarily bound within the measures and tools utilised (Desoete, ; Wall, ; Gascoine et al ., ).…”

“…Comparing measures, Desoete (2008) found that whilst there were general correlations between measures, the understanding of metacognition was heavily related to the measure employed, prompting the conclusion that 'how you test is what you get ' (p. 204). Furthermore, in a recent systematic review, Gascoine et al (2017) found that there were clear age differences in the methods used to gauge metacognition throughout the school years, with the most common approach identified as self-reports. Interestingly, self-reports were employed exclusively to measure metacognition in children over 7 years of age, with observational approaches being adopted for younger pupils (Gascoine et al, 2017).…”

Naturalistic observations of metacognition in engineering: Using observational methods to study metacognitive engagement in engineering

“…As we have argued, observations are a meaningful, nondisruptive way to identify metacognitive behaviors, yet few observation protocols exist for older students. For example, a systematic review of metacognition assessment tools for children aged 4–16 years found that observational protocols (without think‐aloud prompting) have not been used with students older than 9 years of age (Gascoine, Higgins, & Wall, ). We did not find a similar systematic review for older students, but our general literature searches have had scant results regarding observational protocols.…”