Abstracts - Earli

Assessing metacognitive activities: Is using a questionnaire a valid way?Gonny L. M. Schellings, Graduate School of Teaching and Learning, UvA, NetherlandsBernadette H. A. M. Van Hout-Wolters, University of Amsterdam, NetherlandsMarcel V. J. Veenman, University of Amsterdam/ Leiden University, NetherlandsJoost Meijer, SCO Kohnstamm Institute, Univ. of Amsterdam, NetherlandsEducational research has yielded a diversity of assessment instruments for assessing learningstrategies, each with their strengths and methodological flaws (Van Hout-Wolters, 2006).Administering questionnaires, for example, is least effortful. One may question, however, whetherparticipants are able to ‘say what they will do, or recollect accurately what they have done’.Veenman (2005) concluded that research concerning the convergent-validity of questionnaires islacking. Hence, there is a need for validity research with multi-method designs, which must beexecuted meticulously, meaning that different methods should assess the same metacognitiveactivities (van Hout-Wolters, 2006). In the present study, we examine whether a task-specificretrospective questionnaire assessing metacognitive activities yields similar results as assessingmetacognitive activities concurrently with the think-aloud method. The questionnaire wasstraightforwardly constructed parallel to a hierarchical taxonomy developed in a preceding thinkaloudstudy (Meijer, Veenman, & Van Hout-Wolters, 2006). Data from the questionnaire and thethink-aloud method are compared in a within-subjects multi-method design. Sixteen students insecondary education (ninth grade) study a history text while thinking aloud. Immediately afterstudying the text, the students are presented with a metacognitive questionnaire, consisting of 58items. Finally, a learning posttest is administered. Thinking-aloud protocols will be codedaccording to the Meijer et al. metacognitive taxonomy. Analyses will be performed on the level ofspecific metacognitive activities, as well as on super-ordinate categories of metacognitive skills(orientation, planning, execution, monitoring, evaluation, and reflection). At present, the data arebeing gathered and results will be available in due time.Metacognition and strategy use in the college classroomGregory Schraw, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, USAJohn Nietfeld, North Carolina State University, USALi Cao, West Georgia University, USALori Olafson, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, USAWe investigated whether a self-report instrument of metacognitive knowledge was related tomeasures of mental ability, motivation, and strategy use during a college course on learning, andperformance on exams. 60 undergraduates completed the 52-item Metacognitive AwarenessInventory (MAI) (Schraw & Dennison, 1994), the Ravens Progressive Matrices, the Hope Scale, astrategy use inventory, and completed a final exam. The MAI yielded two reliable factors (i.e.,knowledge of cognition, regulation of cognition) that explained 75% of sample variance. Theknowledge of regulation factor was correlated positively with strategy use and the Hope Scale, butwas uncorrelated with the Ravens test and final exam. These findings suggested the MAI has goodconstruct validity, but poor predictive validity when used to predict a single final exam amongcollege students. Future studies should examine the relationship between the MAI and morecomplex measures of learning.K 231 August 2007 08:30 - 10:30Room: Harmónia– 581 –