0 and Metacognition: Relations and individual differences in 2nd graders

Spiess, Manuela; Roebers, Claudia M.; Meier, Beat (6 September 2013). 0 and Metacognition: Relations and individual differences in 2nd graders (Unpublished). In: 16th European Conference on Developmental Psychology. Lausanne, Schweiz. 03.-07.09.2013.

Introduction. Prospective Memory (PM), defined as the ability to remember to perform intended activities at some point in the future (Kliegel & Jäger, 2007), is crucial to succeed in everyday life. PM seems to increase over the childhood years (Zimmermann & Meier, 2006), but yet little is known about PM competences in children in general, but also about factors that influence its development. Currently, a number of studies has focused on factors that might influence PM performance, with EF being potentially influencing mechanisms (Ford, Driscoll, Shum & Macaulay, 2012; Mahy & Moses, 2011). Also metacognitive processes (MC: monitoring and control) are assumed to be involved while learning or optimizing one’s performance (Krebs & Roebers, 2010; 2012; Roebers, Schmid, & Roderer, 2009). Yet, the empirical relation between PM, EF and MC remains rather unclear. We intend to examine relations and explain individual differences in PM performance. Method. An empirical cross-sectional study on 120 2nd graders will be presented. Participants completed six EF tasks (a Stroop, two Updating Tasks, two Shifting Tasks, a Flanker Task), a computerised event-based PM Task and a MC spelling task. Children were tested individually in two sessions of 30 minutes each. Each of the three EF components defined by Miyake, Friedman, Emerson, Witzki & Howerter (2002) was represented by two variables. PM performance was represented by PM accuracy. Metacognitive processes (control, monitoring) were represented separately. Results. Preliminary analyses (SEM) indicate a substantial association between EF (updating, inhibition) and PM. Further, MC seems to be significantly related only to EF. We will explore whether metacognitive monitoring is related to PM monitoring (Roebers, 2002; Mantylä, 2007). As to EF and MC, we expect the two domains to be empirically well distinguishable and nevertheless substantially interrelated. Discussion. The results are discussed on a broader and interindividual level.

Item Type:

Conference or Workshop Item (Speech)


07 Faculty of Human Sciences > Institute of Psychology > Experimental Psychology and Neuropsychology
07 Faculty of Human Sciences > Institute of Psychology > Developmental Psychology

UniBE Contributor:

Spiess, Manuela; Roebers, Claudia and Meier, Beat


100 Philosophy > 150 Psychology
600 Technology > 610 Medicine & health




Anna Maria Ruprecht Künzli

Date Deposited:

27 Jun 2014 15:34

Last Modified:

26 Sep 2015 14:44



Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback