European Journal of Psychology of Education

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 305–324 | Cite as

Reading achievement, metacognition, reading self-concept and interest: A study of German students in grades 3 and 4

  • Christina E. van Kraayenoord
  • Wolfgang Erich Schneider


This study examined the reading achievement, metacognitive knowledge related to reading and memory, reading self-concept, and interest in reading of 140 German school students in Grades 3 and 4. The results indicated significant correlations between the metacognitive variables, motivational variables, and amongst metacognitive and motivational variables, as well as with reading achievement variables. The examination of good and poor readers showed significant differences in metacognitive knowledge of reading and memory, reading self-concept, interest in reading, and in teacher judgements of reading achievement between the groups. Differences between Grade 3 and 4 students were found in their word decoding skills, metacognitive knowledge about reading and memory, and teacher judgements of reading achievement. Results of the regression analysis indicated that reading achievement was predicted by grade level, word decoding, and teacher evaluations of reading achievement. The causal modelling indicated that motivation and metacognition affect reading comprehension in different ways. The findings are discussed in terms of future research and their educational implications.

Key words

Academic achievement Interest Metacognition Reading Self-concept 


Cette étude vise à metre en relation des variables motivationelles et des capacités dites métacognitives d’autoévaluation dans les domaines de la lectureet de la mémoire avec la réussite dans l’acquisition de la compétence lexique. L’étude concerne 140 élèves allemands en 3ème et 4ème année d’école primaire. Les résultats indiquent de fortes corrélations entre les variables métacognitives et motivationelles (entre autres), aussi bien qu’avec des variables de compétence en lecture. La comparaison de “bons” lecteurs et des lecteurs dits “faibles” montre des différences significatives au niveau des connaissances métacognitives de lecture et de la mémoire, de l’image de soi, de la motivation et des jugements des professeurs de ces groupes. Quant aux deux niveaux (3ème et 4ème année), les auteurs trouve des différences en compétence lexique, en connaissance métacognitive de la lecture et de la mémoire, et en ce qui concerne les jugements des enseignnants sur la compétence. Les résultats de l’analyse de régression indiquent que les conclusions concordent avec hypothèses basées sur le niveau, la compétence lexicale et les évaluations des enseignants. Le modèle causal montre que la motivation et la connaissance métacognitive prédisent la compréhension à plusieurs niveaux. L’étude discute aussi les résultats en termes de recherche future et d’implications pédagogiques.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams, M.J. (1990).Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, L., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P.D. Pearson, M. Kamil, R. Carr, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.),Handbook of reading research (vol. 1, pp. 353–394). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  3. Beach, R.W. (1985). Attitude toward literature. In T. Husen & T.N. Postlethwaite (Eds.),The international encyclopedia of education research and studies (vol. 5, pp. 3114–3117). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  4. Boersma, F.J., & Chapman, J.W. (1992).Perception of Ability Scale for Students:Manual Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.Google Scholar
  5. Borkowski, J.G., Carr, M., Rellinger, L., & Pressley, M. (1990). Self-regulated cognition: Interpendence of metacognition, attributions and self-esteem. In B. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.),Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (vol. 1, pp. 53–92). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Borkowski, J.G., & Krause, A.J. (1985). Metacognition and attributional beliefs. In G. d’Ydewalle (Ed.),Cognition, information processing and motivation (pp. 557–567). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  7. Borkowski, J.G., & Mutukrishna, N. (1995). Learning environments and skill generalization: How contexts facilitate regulatory processes and efficacy beliefs. In F.E. Weinert & W. Schneider (Eds.),Memory performance and competencies: Issues of growth and development (pp. 283–300). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Borkowski, J.G., Weyhing, R.S., & Carr, M. (1988). Effects of attributional retraining on strategy-based reading comprehension in learning disabled students.Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 40–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, A., Bransford, J., Ferrara, R., & Campione, J. (1983). Learning, remembering, and understanding. In J.H. Flavell & E.M. Markman (Eds.),Handbook of child psychology: vol. 3. Cognitive development (pp. 77–166). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Bruce, M.E., & Chan, L.K.S. (1991). Cooperative learning in integrated classrooms.Curriculum and Teaching, 6, 48–51.Google Scholar
  11. Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1991). Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic awareness in children.Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 451–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1995). Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic awareness to young children: A 2 and 3 year follow-up and a new preschool trial.Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 488–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carr, M., & Borkowski, J.G. (1989). Attributional training and the generalization of reading strategies with underachieving children.Learning and Individual Differences, 1, 327–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carr, M., Kurtz, B.E., Schneider, W., Turner, L.A., & Borkowski, J.G. (1989). Strategy acquisition and transfer among American and German children: Environmental influences on metacognitive development.Developmental Psychology, 25, 765–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chapman, M. (1988).Constructive evolution: Origins and development of Piaget’s thought. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Chapman, J.W. (1988). Learning disabled children’s self-concepts.Review of Educational Research, 58, 347–371.Google Scholar
  17. Chapman, J.W., & Tunmer, W.E. (1993).Reading Self-Concept Scale. Unpublished scale, Massey University, Educational Research and Development Centre, Palmerston North, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  18. Chapman, J.W., & Tunmer, W.E. (1995). Development of young children’s reading self-concept: An examination of emerging sub-components and their relationship with reading achievement.Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 154–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cross, D.R., & Paris, S.G. (1988). Developmental and instructional analyses of children’s metacognition and reading comprehension.Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dismukes, B.W. (1991). An investigation of the self-reported attitudes toward reading held by rural, middle school students (Doctoral dissertation, Auburn University, 1989).Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 486.Google Scholar
  21. Estes, T.H., Richards, H.C., & Wetmore-Rogers, E. (1989),Construct validity of the Degrees of Reading Power Test. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Reading Association, Austin, TX, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No ED 316 841).Google Scholar
  22. Faber, G. (1992). Bereichsspezifische Beziehungen zwischen leistungsthematischen Schülerselbstkonzepten und Schulleistungen.Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 24, 66–82.Google Scholar
  23. Flavell, J.H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of psychological inquiry.American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gambrell, L., Palmer, B.M., Codling, R.M., & Mazzoni, S.A. (1995).Assessing motivation to read. Instructional Resource No. 14. Athens, GA and College Park, MD: Universities of Georgia and Maryland, National Reading Research Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service 1992-6/96)Google Scholar
  25. Garner, R. (1987).Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  26. Groeben, N. (1982).Lesepsychologie: Textverständnis-Textverständlichkeit. Münster, Germany: Aschendorff.Google Scholar
  27. Harter, S. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the classroom: Motivational and informational components.Developmental Psychology, 17, 300–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning.Review of Educational Research, 60, 549–571.Google Scholar
  29. Jacobs, J.E., & Paris, S.G. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement and instruction.Educational Psychologist, 22, 225–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jöreskog, J., & Sörbom, K.G. (1993).LISREL 8 user’s reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  31. Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of fifty-four children from first through fourth grades.Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kincade, K.M., Kleine, P.F., & Vaughn, J. (1993). Methodological issues in the assessment of children’s reading interests.Journal of Instructional Psychology, 20, 224–236.Google Scholar
  33. Krapp, a., Hidi, S., & Renninger, K.A. (1992). Interest, learning and development. In K.A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.),The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 3–25) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Kurtz, B.E., & Borkowski, J.G. (1984). Children’s metacognition: Exploring relations among knowledge, process, and motivational variables.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 37, 335–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Küspert, P., & Schneider, W. (1998).Würzburg Leise Leseprobe (WLLP 1–4). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe-Verlag.Google Scholar
  36. Lundberg, I. (1984).Learning to read. School Research Newsletter (August). Stockholm: National Board of Education.Google Scholar
  37. Lundberg, I., Frost, J., & Peterson, O.P. (1988). Effects of an extensive program for stimulation phonological awareness in preschool children.Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 264–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marx, H. (1998).Knuspels Leseaufgaben, Forms A & B. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe Verlag.Google Scholar
  39. McEady-Gillead, B. (1989).The leisure time of interested and uninterested readers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Reading Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  40. McKenna, M.C., & Kear, D.J. (1990). Measuring attitude toward reading: A new tool for teachers.The Reading Teacher, 43, 626–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mayer McLain, K.V., Gridley, B.E., & McIntosh, D. (1991). Value of a scale used to measure metacognitive reading awareness.Journal of Educational Research, 85, 81–87.Google Scholar
  42. Moely, B.E., Santulli, K.A., & Obach, M.S. (1995). Strategy instruction, metacognition, and motivation in the elementary school classroom. In F.E. Weinert & W. Schneider (Eds.),Memory performance and competencies: Issues of growth and development (pp. 301–321). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  43. Myers, M., & Paris, S.G. (1978). Children’s metacognitive knowledge about reading.Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 680–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nicholls, J.G. (1978). The development of the concepts of effort and ability, perception of academic attainment, and the understanding that difficult tasks require more ability.Child Development, 49, 800–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. O’Sullivan, J. (1992).Reading beliefs and reading achievement: A developmental study of students from low income families. Report No. 6: Summary reports of paths to literacy and illiteracy in Newfoundland and Labrador. St John’s, Newfoundland: Memorial University, St Johns. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 354 505)Google Scholar
  46. Paris, S.G. (1991). Assessment and remediation of metacognitive aspects of reading comprehension.Topics in Language Disorders, 12, 32–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Paris, S.G., & Oka, E. (1986). Children’s reading strategies, metacognition and motivation.Development Review, 6, 25–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Paris, S.G., Lipson, M.Y., & Wixson, K.K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 293–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Paris, S.G., Wasik, B.A., & Turner, J.C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, & P.O. Pearson (Eds.),Handbook of reading research (vol. 2, pp. 815–860). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  50. Pintrich, P.R., & De Groot, E.V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance.Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pintrich, P.R., Marx, R.W., & Boyle, R.A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change.Review of Educational Research, 63, 167–199.Google Scholar
  52. Pintrich, P.R., Roeser, R.W., & De Groot, E.A.M. (1994). Classroom and individual differences in early adolescents motivation and self-regulated learning.Journal of Early Adolescence, 14, 139–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pintrich, P.R., & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students’ motivational beliefs and their cognitive engagement in academic tasks. In D. Schunk & J. Meece (Eds.),Student perceptions: Causes and consequences (pp. 149–183). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  54. Pressley, M., Borkowski, J.G., & Schneider, W. (1987). Cognitive strategies: Good strategy users coordinate metacognition and knowledge. In R. Vasta & G. Whitehurst (Eds.),Annals of child development (vol. 5, pp. 89–129). New York: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  55. Pressley, M., Borkowski, J.G., & Schneider, W. (1989). Good information processing: What is it and what education can do to promote it?International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 857–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P.B., Marks, M.B., Brown, R., & Stein, S. (1992). Good strategy instruction is motivating and interesting. In K.A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.),The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 333–358). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  57. Pressley, M., Harris, K.R., & Marks, M.B. (1992). But good strategy instructors are constructivists.Educational Psychology Review, 4, 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Renninger, K.A. (1992). Individual interest and development: Implications for theory and practice. In K.A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp. (Eds.),The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 361–395). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  59. Schneider, W., Borkowski, J.G., Kurtz, B.E., & Kerwin, K. (1986). Metamemory and motivation: A comparison of strategy use and performance in German and American children.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17, 315–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schneider, W., Körkel, J., & Weinert, F.E. (1987). The effects of intelligence, self-concept, and attributional style on metamemory and memory behavior.International Journal of Behavioral Development, 10, 281–289.Google Scholar
  61. Schneider, W., Körkel, J., & Weinert, F.E. (1989). Domain-specific knowledge and memory, performance: A comparison of high-and low-aptitude children.Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 306–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schneider, W., Küspert, P., Roth, E., Visé, M., & Marx, H. (1997). Short- and long-term effects of training phonological awareness in kindergarten: Evidence from two German studies.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 66, 311–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schneider, W., & Pressley, M. (1997).Memory development between two and twenty (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  64. Schunk, D. (1989). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.),Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research and practice (pp. 83–110). New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  65. Schunk, D. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation.Educational Psychologist, 26, 207–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Snow, C., Burns, S., & Griffin, P. (1998).Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  67. Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy.Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Talan, C.S. (1980). A correlative analysis of reading achievement, reading attitude, home literacy environment, and self-concept in the middle school (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Tennessee, 1980).Doctoral Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 2040.Google Scholar
  69. Treff Schülerbuch:Lesen, Staunen und die Welt entdecken (1995). Seelze, Germany: Velber Verlag GMbH.Google Scholar
  70. van Kraayenoord, C.E. (1996).The Interest in Reading Scale. Unpublished scale, The University of Queensland, Fred and Eleanor Schonell Special Education Research Centre, Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
  71. Visé, M. (1997).Metagedächtnis, Vorwissen und Textbezogenes Lernen: Zur Entwicklung der kürz- und langfristigen Gedächtnisleistung bei Schulkinder. Lengrich, Germany: Pabst Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  72. Visé, M., Schlagmüller, M., & Schneider, W. (in preparation).Würzburg Metamemory Test (2nd ed.). Würzburg, Germany: Universität Würzburg, Institut für Psychologie.Google Scholar
  73. Walberg, H.J., & Tsai, S. (1985). Correlates of reading achievement and attitude: A national assessment study.Journal of Educational Research, 78, 159–167.Google Scholar
  74. Weinert, F.E. (1986). Development variations of memory and performance and memory-related knowledge acorss the life-span. In A. Sörenenson, F.E. Weinert, & L.R. Sherrod (Eds.),Human development: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 535–554). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  75. Weinert, F.E., Helmke, A., & Schneider, W. (1989). Individual differences in learning performance and school achievement: Plausible parallels and unexplained discrepancies. In H. Mandl, E. de Corte, N. Bennett, & H.F. Friedrichs (Eds.),Learning and instruction (pp. 461–479). Oxford: Pergamon PressGoogle Scholar
  76. Weinstein, C.E., & Mayer, R.E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 315–327). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada, Lisbon, Portugal/ Springer Netherlands 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christina E. van Kraayenoord
    • 1
  • Wolfgang Erich Schneider
    • 2
  1. 1.Schonell Special Educational Research CentreThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WuerzburgWürzburgGermany

Personalised recommendations