Issues in the measurement of metacognition

By Gregory Schraw, J. Impara. 2000

202 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Learning How to Learn and Assessment for Learning: a theoretical inquiry (2006, result): “…a separate entity, and about the relationship between first-order/second-order constructs, general vs. domain specific learning, and issues related to assessment, have been previously rehearsed in relation to many of the meta-constructs within the psychology literature (see Schraw & Impara, 2000).”
Self-regulated learning: current and future directions. (2004, unknown): “One of the areas Self-regulated learning: current and future directions where this protocol has most been used is in reading (Pressley, 2000; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995).”
Development of an Instrument Designed to Investigate Elements of Science Students’ Metacognition, Self‐Efficacy and Learning Processes: The SEMLI‐S (2008, background): “…seek empirical data for use in, for example, evaluating the nature and extent of students’ metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive processing, and evaluating the effects of interventions designed to develop and/or enhance students’ metacognition (Garner & Alexander, 1989; Schraw & Impara, 2000).”
Knowing What You Know and What You Don't: Further Research on Metacognitive Knowledge Monitoring (2002, background): “As Schraw (2000) noted, developing effective methods to assess metacognition has been difficult and time consuming.”