22 Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 56, No.

1, 2012, 2239
Childrens use of meta-cognition
in solving everyday problems:
Childrens monetary decision-
making
Chwee Beng Lee
University of Western Sydney
Noi Keng Koh
Xin Le Cai
Choon Lang Quek
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
T
he purpose of this study was to understand how children use meta-cognition
in their everyday problem-solving, particularly making monetary decisions. A
particular focus was to identify components of meta-cognition, such as regu-
lation of cognition and knowledge of cognition observed in childrens monetary
decision-making process, the roles of meta-cognition in childrens monetary decision-
making process, and the emerging factors that help to explain childrens monetary
decision-making processes. Data were collected from 136 mixed ability fifth-grade
students (typically 10 years of age) from six different government primary schools in
Singapore through focus group and one-to-one interviews. Using grounded theory, it
was found that childrens monetary decision-making is a complex process, that chil-
dren often reflect upon unwise decisions and unpleasant experiences, and that
parental involvement was an influential factor in their childrens decision-making.
In a knowledge economy that rewards highly adaptive and creative individuals who
are able to assume epistemic agency and learn intentionally (Bereiter & Scardamalia,
2006), students need to be actively involved in the construction of knowledge and
the evaluation of choices that they make (Osana, Tucker & Bennett, 2003). Recently,
the Ministry of Education (Singapore) announced a new framework to enhance the
development of 21st-century competencies in Singaporean students. Such a
framework seeks to better prepare students to thrive in a fast-changing and highly
connected world (Ministry of Education, 2010). This new framework suggests
21st-century competencies and student outcomes. One of the desirable outcomes
is responsible decision-making. As a type of problem (see Jonassen, 2004), decision-
making is complex because the problem solvers need to consider factors such as
time and cost (Lee, Teo & Bergin, 2009). Decision-making is defined as the process
of choosing a course of action from among two or more alternatives while in the
midst of pursuing ones goals (Byrnes, 1998). The ability to make sound decisions is
a vital life skill.
Childrens use of meta-cognition in solving everyday problems 23
Meta-cognition is an important aspect of problem-solving (Gardner, 1991;
Karmiloff-Smith, 1992) because it includes problem-relevant awareness of ones
thinking, monitoring of cognitive processes, regulation of cognitive processes and
application of heuristics (Hennessey, 1999, 2003). Generally, meta-cognition
comprises two main components: regulation of cognition and knowledge of
cognition. Problem-solving is considered the most essential cognitive activity in
everyday and professional contexts (Jonassen, 2000), and recent studies show that
the ability to solve everyday problems predicts on-the-job performance (Cianciolo
et. al., 2006; Sternberg, 2005). Everyday problems, often characterised as ill
structured, are emergent, their solutions are unpredictable, and they typically require
multiple criteria for evaluating solutions (Jonassen, 2000). Although Hong, Jonassen
and McGee (2003) found that meta-cognition is called for when solving ill-
structured problems, research on the role of meta-cognition in solving ill-structured
problems is scarce. Most research on understanding meta-cognition focuses on
classroom settings (Everson & Tobias, 1998; Schraw & Dennison, 1994; Sperling,
Howard, Miller & Murphy, 2002) and little is known about the influence of meta-
cognition on childrens problem-solving ability in everyday settings. Some
researchers have argued that everyday problem-solving requires more complex
cognitive processes than solving well-structured problems, such as most textbook
problems. For instance, Johnson-Laird (1982) argued that everyday reasoning
involves implicit inferences that depend upon general knowledge and generally go
beyond the strictly necessary conclusion. Solving well-structured problems requires
meta-cognition, and this is even more the case in solving everyday problems.
A particular focus of this research is on elementary school childrens meta-
cognition, because studies in this area are found to be limited (Sperling et al., 2002;
Stipek, Feiler, Daniels & Milburn, 1995). There is great potential in unravelling the
roles of meta-cognition in childrens day-to-day problem-solving. This refers, in
particular, to solving problems that are frequently experienced in daily life, that are
complex, and multidimensional, and that are often ill-structured as to their goals
and their solutions (Berg, Strough, Calderone, Sansone & Weir, 1998, p. 29). Hence,
understanding the role of meta-cognition in childrens day-to-day problem-solving
may lead to the development of more effective instruction that can help children in
acquiring important skills. The type of problem of interest is decision-making as
illustrated by Jonassen (2007). In addition, the study will focus on childrens
monetary decision-making for pragmatic and theoretical considerations.
Since 2005, the Ministry of Education has implemented financial literacy
programs in primary and secondary schools through a systematic approach.
Financial literacy is not taught as a subject in the curriculum, but rather it is infused
in relevant subjects such as Social Studies. Substantial effort has been made to enable
students to begin to acquire sound financial decision-making skills at a young age.
The importance of adult and youth financial literacy to Singaporeans is being
increasingly recognised as both the spending potential and their access to money
increase with the rise of affluence in society. It is of practical importance because
such understanding can bring insights to the way we design programs to enhance
or develop childrens decision-making process. It is therefore important to
24 Australian Journal of Education
understand how children exercise logical reasoning when making monetary
decisions.
Literature review
Meta-cognition
Meta-cognition is the awareness and regulation of the process of the learners
thinking. Baker and Brown (1984, p. 353) defined it as the knowledge and control
a child has over his or her own thinking and learning activities. Some argue that
meta-cognition consists of two main components: knowledge about meta-cognitive
resources, and self-regulation of cognition (McLain, Gridley & McIntosh, 1991).
Both are critical components in problem-solving, especially with everyday problems
that may have no clear solutions and require the consideration of alternative
solution paths and competing goals. In such situations, problem-solvers may stand a
greater chance of success if they are aware of their own cognition and are able to
use such awareness to control and regulate the problem-solving process.
Knowledge of cognition
Knowledge of cognition refers to how much learners understand their own
memories and the way they learn (Sperling, Howard, Staley & Dubois, 2004).
Knowledge of cognition includes subcomponents such as declarative knowledge
(about self and about strategies), procedural knowledge (about how to use strategies)
and conditional knowledge (about when and why to use strategies) (Schraw &
Dennison, 1994). These subcomponents are meta-cognitive because they are
thoughts about knowledge states and abilities (Cross & Paris, 1988). Research
studies have suggested that individuals vary considerably in their knowledge of
cognition (Palinscar & Brown, 1987; Schraw, 1994; Schraw & Nietfeld, 1998). The
importance of knowledge of cognition is argued by Swanson (1990), who suggested
that children with high meta-cognitive knowledge and low aptitude scores (meta-
cognitive knowledge is similar to knowledge of cognition) performed significantly
better than children with low meta-cognitive knowledge and higher aptitude
scores. In a recent study on meta-cognition and decision-making, Batha and Carroll
(2007) found that knowledge of cognition affects university students decision-
making. Some researchers (Baker, 1989; Jacobs & Paris, 1987) also argued that
knowledge of cognition is as important as regulation of knowledge.
Regulation of knowledge
Regulation of cognition includes subcomponents such as planning, evaluation, and
monitoring. It plays a crucial role in problem-solving as it enables learners to
organise and monitor their thinking. It refers to the control of an individuals
ongoing cognitive processes. Brown (1980) used the term executive control
processes, which include planning (planning the use of strategies, organising
materials to be used), monitoring (constantly checking the use of various strategies)
and evaluation. When solving everyday problems that have no defined goals and
solutions, the problem-solver not only needs to be aware of his or her
Childrens use of meta-cognition in solving everyday problems 25
problem-solving processes, but must also regulate such processes. Davidson and
Sternberg (1998) stated that regulation of knowledge (referred to as meta-cognitive
skills) enables students to strategically encode the nature of the problem by forming
mental representations of the problems, selecting appropriate solutions, and
identifying and overcoming barriers to the process. Echoing the importance of
regulation of cognition, Batha and Carroll (2007) found a stronger relationship
between regulation of cognition ability and decision-making ability than between
knowledge of cognition and decision-making ability when they conducted a study
on university students decision-making ability.
Everyday problem-solving
Like adults, children solve different kinds of problems daily, ranging from textbook
problems that are mostly well structured and are characterised by a well-defined
initial state, a known goal, and a finite set of rules and principles, to everyday
problems that mostly entail multiple solutions, multiple solution paths, or no
solution at all (Jonassen, 2004; Kitchner, 1983). Solving everyday problems required
meta-cognition because such problem-solving situations are highly variable and
success criteria depend on how the child clarifies and reconciles competing
solutions (Lee et al., 2009). Jonassen (2004, 2007) described a typology for types of
problems. According to him, there are 11 kinds of problems that vary according to
their structuredness, complexity and dynamicity. One of the problem types is
decision-making, which is an everyday part of childrens lives (Jonassen, 2000).
Children make decisions about daily expenses, time allocation (whether to do
homework or to play) and social situations (the types of friends they will associate
with).
When making decisions, children must compare and contrast the advantages
and disadvantages of alternative solutions and justify their solutions. In such
situations, problem-solvers need to identify the most relevant criteria. The decision-
making process can be very complex because the problem-solvers need to consider
factors such as time and cost. According to normative theory, people follow a linear
process of decision-making from listing all possible solutions to evaluating solutions,
choosing the solution, devising the plan based on evaluation and then evaluating
the consequences (Osana et al., 2003). But everyday problem-solving is often
complex and multidimensional and may be chaotically complex (Sinnott, 1989).
The reliance on normative theory to explain everyday problem-solving may fail to
acknowledge the complexity of such problems. Most decision-making models are
intended to account for the adults decision-making processes but these models
rarely describe or explain how children make decisions (Byrnes, Miller & Reynolds,
1999).
The purpose of this study is to understand how children use meta-cognition
in their everyday problem-solving, particularly when making monetary decisions.
Three research questions guided our enquiry:
what components of meta-cognition are observed in childrens monetary
decision-making process?
26 Australian Journal of Education
what role does meta-cognition play in childrens monetary decision-making
process?
are there emerging factors that help to explain childrens monetary decision-
making process?
Method
Participants
Data were collected from 136 mixed-ability fifth-grade students from six different
government primary schools in Singapore. Twenty focus group interviews were
conducted, with each group comprising six to eight students from different classes.
Eight students were later selected for one-to-one interviews, each interview lasting
for approximately 40 minutes. These students had been taught English language as
part of their formal schooling for at least five years. They were able to understand
both printed and spoken instructions and respond to interview questions. Permission
was granted by the school leaders and parents to conduct the focus group interviews.
Because of the age of the participants, opportunities were provided for them to ask
questions about the data collection process. Their participation in this study was
voluntary.
Procedures
Each focus group interview lasted approximately one hour and was conducted by
the first author and trained researchers. All interviews were audio-recorded and
were later transcribed and coded for detailed analysis. Before each interview, specific
advice was given that participants were free to choose not to participate at any time
during or after the interview. To gather multiple perspectives, a maximal variation
sampling strategy (Cresswell, 2005) was used. The assistance of the level head of
department of each school was sought in selecting students from high-, middle- and
low-performing academic classes. Specifically, in each focus group interview, there
were at least two students from each band.
The focus group interviews were conducted in quiet rooms during class time
when the children were taken out from their classes. Before each interview, the
children were briefed on the purpose of the interview. Among these 136 students,
eight students from a particular primary school were selected for one-to-one
interviews on a recent monetary decision to obtain in-depth understanding of their
thought process.
Description of monetary decision-making
Participants were asked to describe their everyday monetary decision-making
process. This is a different means of eliciting information from the hypothetical
problems constructed by researchers to reveal dimensions of everyday problem-
solving (Berg et al., 1998). In addition, studies have documented that decontextualised
self-report data do not align well with actual activities in concrete situations
(Veeman, 2005; Veeman, van Hout-Wolters & Afflerbach, 2006). Some principles of
Childrens use of meta-cognition in solving everyday problems 27
the critical incident method (Jonassen, Tessmer & Hannum, 1999) were incorporated
into our semi-structured interviews to elicit information from the children. This
method enabled the collection of in-depth information on childrens reflection on
how they dealt with a particular incident that had significantly affected them.
Hence, the interviews were constructed to ask students several questions:
to describe a recent and significant decision they made involving the use of
money
to explain why the incident was successful or unsuccessful,
to describe when the incident occurred,
to assess the students experience of this decision-making process.
The students took turns to describe their decision-making, with the researcher
probing by using prompts such as: Tell me why you decided to buy the thing that
you just described?, What are some of the things that helped you to make that
decision?, Did you seek advice from friends/family before you made the decision?
and Why do you think this is a bad decision? to further elicit information from
the children.
During the focus group interviews, it became apparent that some students
from a particular school were willing and eager to provide more information.
One-to-one interviews were conducted with eight students from this school on
another day. During these interviews, the students were given approximately 10 to
15 minutes to think of a significant recent monetary decision. Paper and pencils
were provided to the students to draw diagrams representing their decision-making
process. They were then asked to explain to the interviewer the process. Figure 1
shows an example of such a drawing. This method has been shown to be effective
when children use their drawings to represent their ideas of concepts such as
evaporation (McGuigan, Qualter & Schilling, 1993; Rennie & Jarvis, 1995). These
drawings were coded and analysed together with the interview transcripts.
Figure 1 A monetary decision-making process drawn by one student
28 Australian Journal of Education
Data analysis
In the first phase of coding, grounded theory principles (Strauss & Corbin, 1990)
were used to assist in generating theory where existing theories did not deal with
the research problem under study (Creswell, 1998, 2005). Such an approach was
salient to this study as it helped to generate theory to explain the complex nature
of everyday problem-solving. The first three transcripts were coded independently
by two coders looking for emerging categories or themes. The rest of the transcripts
were thereafter coded by a single coder whose work was checked by the other
coder. The open coding process involved breaking down, comparing, and
categorising data. In such a coding process, specifying the characteristics of
categories is crucial. Initially, general terms were used to describe segments of data.
For instance, when asked where they get the money to purchase things that they
want, one student mentioned: I often buy things that I want only when my mother
or father is around. This phrase was coded as declarative knowledge. It was then
subcategorised as strategies. During open coding, 64 concepts were identified and
verified by two researchers. In the second phase of coding, the codes were refined,
based on an initial coding rubric constructed from the meta-cognition literature
(discussed earlier). During this process, two researchers coded the data several times,
and several rounds of discussions took place in order to reach consensus. The final
codes were determined once saturation (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) of data coding
was reached. The codes were refined and restructured to eventually form 24 codes.
In axial coding, the researchers assembled the data and put them back together
in new ways by making connections between a category and its subcategories. This
necessarily enabled the researcher to build a skeleton of the findings. The researcher
made links among categories and subcategories by using different types of arrow
keys and relationships. For example, the researcher was able to link fact finding to
planning using the relationship is a type of . In selective coding, the aim is to allow
a core category to emerge that captures the essence of the findings. To do so, the
researcher re-examined the data and the research purpose and questions in order to
narrow down the focus and select a core category. As a result of this, a theoretical
model was constructed from the data to represent childrens monetary decision-
making.
Results
Analysis of the coding suggested the relationships of various subcomponents of
regulation of knowledge and knowledge of cognition in childrens monetary
decision-making process. A theoretical model was constructed from our data
analysis (Figure 2) that will deal with the research questions. The findings will be
illustrated with actual excerpts from the interview transcripts.
Components of meta-cognition in childrens monetary decision-
making process
From coding and analysis, it was found that there were different subcomponents of
meta-cognition in childrens monetary decision-making processes (see Figure 2).
Childrens use of meta-cognition in solving everyday problems 29


Declarative
knowledge:
self
Declarative
knowledge:
parents
Declarative
knowledge:
strategies
Procedural
knowledge
Conditional
knowledge
Evaluating:
alternatives
Evaluating:
reflecting
Evaluating:
strategies
Evaluating:
comparison
Planning
Decision
made
Planning:
goal setting
Planning:
fact-finding
Monitoring
K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

o
f

c
o
g
n
i
t
i
o
n
R
e
c
o
g
n
i
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
g
n
i
t
i
o
n
Figure 2 A theoretical model explaining meta-cognition in childrens
monetary decision-making process
Two dummy components (planning and decision made) were added to complete
the model. Figure 3 shows the frequencies of these subcomponents. It was
interesting to note that even within some of the subcomponents, further
subcategorisation was possible. For instance, within declarative knowledge, another
three categories emerged during coding; they were declarative (parents)for
example, If I ask them, they will say dont buy this, dont buy that, this is not good
for you; declarative (self)for example, always think twice before you buy things
. . . otherwise you wont have money to buy things that you need to buy, and
declarative (strategies)for example:
I went to Beijing and we went to try the Chinese tea. The person who let us try
the tea told us that we can buy it at his shop. But I know that outside the shop,
therell be some more shops and the prices and designs will be different, so I
compared prices from all shops and I used the money my parents gave me for
the trip to buy the cheapest one.
Our analysis suggested that children not only possess knowledge about themselves,
but that they also possess knowledge about their parents behaviour, and knowledge
about the strategies they can use during problem-solving. Similarly, within
evaluation, four other categories were identified (alternatives, comparison, reflection,
and strategies) and two other categories within planning (fact-finding and goal
setting). Children were able to analyse their performance by evaluating their
alternatives, strategies used, comparison made, and reflecting upon their problem-
30 Australian Journal of Education
solving. During planning, children set goals and found facts to support their
planning process. There were no emerging subcategories for conditional knowledge,
procedural knowledge or monitoring (shown as CK, PK and M in Figure 3).
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
C
K
D
K

(
p
a
r
e
n
t
s
)
D
K

(
s
e
l
f
)
D
K

(
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
)
P
K
E

(
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
E

(
c
o
m
p
a
r
e
)
E

(
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
)
E

(
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
)
M
P

(
f
a
c
t
-
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
)
P

(
g
o
a
l
-
s
e
t
t
i
n
g
)
Figure 3 Sub-components of meta-cognition found in childrens monetary
decision-making processes
The roles of knowledge of cognition in childrens monetary decision-
making
The coding analysis revealed that in making monetary decisions, childrens
knowledge of cognition was observed. There were 37 instances suggesting childrens
declarative knowledge about themselves. When asked about what is most important
when it comes to using money, one particular student said: you dont buy things
that are too expensive, and you need to make sure whether it is something you
really need or you want. Another student said: sometimes I buy things that I want,
but most of the time, I buy things that I need. Our evidence suggested that children
not only possess knowledge of cognition about themselves; they also possessed
knowledge about strategies. Some strategies they knew included purchasing from
stores that are perceived to have lower overhead cost and therefore lower prices This
was evident when one student mentioned that, to make the money worth more, he
would:
go somewhere where stuff are cheaper . . . there are some shops that have stuff
imported from China and thats cheaper than stuff from elsewhere . . . Even if its
a pen imported from China it s cheaper, because they are selling on the streets.
Whereas if you go to a shopping mall, the rental is more expensive, so you pay
more.
Another common strategy was to compare prices from different stores. For instance,
one student said:
Childrens use of meta-cognition in solving everyday problems 31
I went to Beijing and we went to try the Chinese tea. The person who let us try
the tea told us we can buy it at his shop. But I know that outside the shop, therell
be some more shops and the prices and designs will be different, so I compared
prices from all shops and I used the money my parents gave me for the trip to
buy the cheapest one.
To be able to use money wisely, a large number of children also chose to save as
much as possible for future needs. This was evident when one child said: use as little
money as you can and save the rest for future needs.
The children we interviewed seemed to use knowledge about their parents as
well, and such knowledge helped them in monetary decision-making. During the
coding, it became apparent that children were able to anticipate their parents
behaviour towards their monetary decision-making. One child tended to report
every element of his spending to his mother because: if I dont tell her and she
found out, she would scold me and think that I steal. It was also interesting that
some children did not see the need to seek permission to spend because they knew
that their parents would not ask them about their spending. When asked whether
he would need to seek his parents permission, one child replied no need . . .
because they are rich and they just give. Having knowledge of their parents likely
behaviour and their anticipated reactions enabled children to make monetary
decisions that were to their own advantage.
Analysis also revealed an interesting phenomenon. Childrens conditional
knowledge (the knowledge about when and why to use strategies) and procedural
knowledge (about how to use strategies) were very much related to their views on
their parents behaviour towards their monetary decision-making. In other words,
the declarative knowledge about parents contributed largely to their conditional
knowledge that, in turn, formed the basis for procedural knowledge. For instance,
one particular child said that because he did not have enough money to buy a
birthday present for his brother, he had to borrow from someone else, and he
therefore negotiated with his parents by asking them to first pay for the present, and
he would then reimburse them at a later date with his savings. This child knew that
proper negotiation with his parents was critical as this would ensure that he got the
money for his brothers present. Another child was also aware that he needed to seek
his parents permission for making purchases because: sometimes I buy games that
are more expensive. For this child, knowing when and why to use such knowledge
was important so as to avoid being scolded by his parents. In terms of procedural
knowledge, it was evident that children clearly understood how to go about
achieving their goals and what rules to apply. For instance, when asked about where
to obtain money to buy things she wanted, one child said that she obtained the
money from her father because he says that I can only get what I want once in a
month. Another child also showed that he knew how to apply rules to realise his
goal as he said: I got the money from my father, because I help him to run errands
so he gives me some allowance.
32 Australian Journal of Education
The roles of regulation of cognition in childrens monetary decision-
making
Most of the children interviewed showed evidence of planning when making
monetary decisions, and 47 instances of planning were captured in the coding. One
child, when asked whether she plans her spending, replied that:
my usual pocket money is $2. My mother said that I must save at least half of the
money that I bring to school. So I plan on the bus on my way to school.
Based on their knowledge of cognition, goals were set. For instance, another child
said: I get $25 per month and I save $10 a month. Then the rest is spent on Ezlink
card [transportation card] and I save the extra money. Knowing that he only had a
limited allowance, this child rationed his money and set a goal of $10 savings per
month. When the childs goal was simple and did not require much consideration,
the plan would be executed without much evaluation. Facing a difficult decision,
children evaluated their plans by comparing options or by evaluating the strategy
used. For instance, when asked to describe the most recent decision made on using
money, one child said that:
at the fun fair in school during the March holidays, there were many stalls, and
one stall was run by other people instead of the teachers, and there was Awfully
Chocolate cake [name of a cake made by a famous cake shop] for $30 and it was
this big. And on the opposite side, just at the corner, because no-one went there
as all went for Awfully Chocolate cake . . . they were selling one slice at $2 and
it was about this thick. And if you were to buy a cake, I calculated, it would be
$12 for an entire cake and its bigger than the Awfully Chocolate one and my
cousin said it was tastier. So why buy an entire cake when its smaller and costs
$30 when you can buy this one where there is no long queue . . . with lower
price and you get more?
In this case, when the child faced choices, he compared his options. He not only
compared the prices, but also the size and taste of the cake and the wait time. When
making a difficult decision, another child evaluated his strategy. He said:
I go to my parents for advice. If I need something which costs $200$300, theyll
ask me if I can wait for a while to see if theres a discount. Or if I really want the
item theyll save the money first and see if I do some good deeds or do well for
the exams and then decide. In this economic recession my father lost a lot of
money and he said that we should learn to save now.
The process of evaluating strategy and comparison triggered the process of
evaluating alternatives when the childrens plan was difficult to succeed. For
instance, one child said:
Last Saturday, there was this new model of an airplane that you had to put petrol
in but it was quite costly, it cost $250. I had only $170 and I was short on money
so I actually went to my parents for advice. They asked why I wanted it and
whats so good about it. It was quite fast and flies 40 metres into the air, like a
[real] airplane. They asked me to look at other models which were less expensive,
like those which cost $150. I thought about it and I went to the market again.
Childrens use of meta-cognition in solving everyday problems 33
There was a plane which was not so good. It flies 1415 metres into the air but
it cost $150. So I decided to buy that plane and I had to put a receiver on this
plane. The receiver cost $25 and the controller had a camera in it and I still have
it now and I fly it almost every day in whenever I have free time.
There was evidence that children do monitor their own monetary decisions. This
was usually done as a result of planning for future monetary decisions. A number of
children told us that they watched their spending and savings closely by budgeting
so that they would not overspend and would have sufficient money for buying
things they wanted. To ensure the effectiveness of such monitoring process, some
children resorted to the use of a booklet or savings accounts. For instance, one child
said: I write them down in a little booklet . . . Like, write down what I bought and
how much I spent.
Coding also revealed that children do reflect upon their own actions as 49
instances of reflection were coded. It was interesting to note that reflection usually
occurred when the child recognised an unwise decision. For instance, one child
said:
When I was younger, I always like to patronise the bookshop and whenever I see
nice things I would use my pocket money to go buy them. But now I am bigger,
I realise that those things are of no use . . . and I regretted buying those things,
now I just put them at a corner and [Im] not using them any more.
Another child made a similar comment:
Last time when my soccer boots were worn out, I wanted to buy another pair.
When my parents brought me to the shop there were an old and a new design.
I wanted to buy the new design so I bought the more expensive one when the
old design was also nice and cheaper . . . it was a bad decision because the old
design was actually nice and I felt I have wasted money.
Childrens reflection was characterised by words such as: regret (three instances),
should not/should have (six instances), think twice/think more (six instances),
check (five instances), and careful/carefully (three instances). No instances were
found where children reflected upon decisions that they were happy with. It was
also evident that the reflection on the decision made provided feedback into their
existing knowledge about cognition. For instance, one child said:
Last time I used to buy those very fancy erasers with all the colours. But after
a while, what happens is that they will turn black on the paper and they become
awful. But if you buy those that dont look attractive like the white color ones,
they will erase properly without any marks. So I decided not to buy those fancy
ones any more, because it is just wasteful.
Another child also told the interviewer that his poor decision-making experience
had influenced him to really think about what I am buying and why did I need it.
Such information suggested the recursive nature of decision-making (Abelson &
Levi, 1985).
34 Australian Journal of Education
Parents as the most influential factor
Parents were undeniably the most influential factor in childrens monetary decision-
making process. They were perceived as financial supporters, or advisers in their
childrens spending and saving processes. Being financially dependent, children
looked to their parents for support and advice. The advisory role of parents was seen
mostly in the form of approval to purchase. Students whose parents had strong
influence on them would seek their parents permission before making a purchase.
In the process of permission-seeking, parents engaged in discussion with their
children and, if they disagreed with the purchase, might advise the child accordingly.
For instance, one student said: Sometimes I go to my siblings or parents and ask if
I should buy it because it might not be worth it or if its too expensive, while
another said:
I saw my favourite series [comic books] in the bookstore, so I went back home
. . . and asked my parents if I could buy it. As it was cheaper due to a discount,
they agreed.
Another method used by parents to guide their children in making monetary
decisions was by rewarding their children in exchange for their good behaviour or
better performance in academic results. For instance, one student said that if he
obtained good results on an examination, his mother would allow him to buy
whatever things he wanted. One child told us that:
I get what I want by doing stuff, like, drinking apple juice everyday or getting
first in class for exam. But I dont use my money to buy it. I ask my dad to buy
it when I do something good.
Such transactions seemed to be quite common and to be an acceptable part of
decision-making among the children.
Interestingly, not all children agreed with the way adults handle money. For
instance, a child said that sometimes we think that our decisions are good but our
parents may not think so. While some students disagreed with the way their parents
handled money, this created more awareness in the way they handled their own
saving. In one such case, one student described her dilemma on handling her piggy
bank. When asked for her reason for not asking her parent to handle the piggy bank
on her behalf, she said: my mother will spend it later . . . also . . . she will use it to
buy lottery tickets.
Conclusion and implications
The intent of this study was to explore how children exercise meta-cognition in
their everyday problem-solving, particularly in making monetary decisions. Using a
qualitative approach, the study investigated whether there were subcomponents of
meta-cognition observed in childrens monetary decision-making process, the roles
of meta-cognition in this process and, lastly, whether there were emerging factors
that help to explain childrens monetary decision-making process. Coding of data
showed that there were subcategories of meta-cognition displayed by the children
in relation to their monetary decision-making process. Three levels of categories of
Childrens use of meta-cognition in solving everyday problems 35
meta-cognition were identified, and within these there were subcategories. For
instance, within declarative knowledge, three sub-subcategories emerged (self,
parents, strategies). This important finding highlighted the complexity of everyday
problem-solving (Berg et al., 1998). Such findings are very much aligned with
relevant studies. For instance, Flavell, Miller and Miller (2002) divided meta-
cognition into two subcomponents: monitoring and self-regulation, and meta-
cognitive knowledge. They then further subdivided meta-cognitive knowledge into
knowledge about persons, knowledge about tasks and knowledge about strategies.
Our finding also complemented other studies that examined childrens meta-
cognition. Some of these studies employed quantitative methods to suggest the
existence of two major components: knowledge and regulation of cognition (Lee
et al., 2009) in childrens everyday problem-solving. Schraw and Dennison (1994)
also concluded that a two-factor solution (knowledge and regulation of cognition)
fits more closely with theoretical predictions.
Using a qualitative research approach, this study identified subcomponents of
regulation and knowledge of cognition. The identification of levels of meta-
cognition is important to the extent that it helps researchers and educators to obtain
a deeper understanding of how children solve everyday problems, particularly
making monetary decisions. The findings of this study suggest that normative
models of decision-making are insufficient to explain childrens decision-making
(Osana et al., 2003), particularly everyday problem-solving. These decision-making
processes are non-linear and far more complex than normative models can explain.
This finding may potentially bring insights to curriculum planning. When designing
and implementing financial literacy programs to help students acquire necessary
financial decision-making skills, it is of importance to take note of the complex
decision-making process of children if the programs are to effectively develop
students ability in making sound monetary decisions.
To capture childrens thoughts on monetary decision-making, participants were
asked to describe their everyday monetary decision-making processes. This method
of eliciting information is different from the hypothetical problems constructed by
researchers (Berg et al., 1998; Gummerum, Keller, Takezawa & Mata, 2008; Osana et
al., 2003). By asking the children to describe their own personal experience through
the critical incident method, it was possible to probe more deeply into their thoughts
and to elicit practical and realistic information from the children. Such an approach
is very much aligned with situated cognition (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989),
which attempts to understand reasoning in context. Studying childrens reasoning
under realistic conditions may yield greater insights into how children make
monetary decisions without the interference of adults assumptions. To obtain a more
in-depth understanding of how children make monetary decisions, it may be
necessary to examine their reasoning process through methods that can potentially
elicit important information about the processes children use.
One salient phenomenon that may warrant attention from researchers and
educators is that children do reflect upon their monetary decision-making process.
Byrnes, Miller and Reynolds (1999) suggested that researchers studying decision-
making should focus on what people do before they reach a decision instead of
36 Australian Journal of Education
limiting their focus to what happens after a decision has been implemented. But the
findings of this study indicate that it is of critical importance to understand the
cognitive behaviour of a decision-maker after a decision has been made, because
this has implications for the subsequent decisions that he or she will make. What is
even more intriguing from these findings is that all the instances of reflection
suggest that unwise decision-making experiences trigger reflection, characterised
by words such as: regret, should/shouldnt, think more/think twice, check, and
careful/carefully. Out of the 136 students interviewed, none described reflection
on wise or good decisions. Does this finding imply that unwise decision-making or
unpleasant experiences can be a necessary condition for reflection? If so, then
curriculum and instruction may focus on creating similar experiences for children
to develop and acquire meta-cognition in making everyday decisions. This research
finding requires more analysis and further validation. In addition, this research
presents evidence for the recursive nature of decision-making (Abelson & Levi,
1985), finding that reflection provides necessarily feedback to childrens knowledge
of cognition.
The significant influence of parental involvement was noted. In most cases,
parents played an advisory role or acted as financial supporters in childrens
monetary decision-making process. Parents also exerted their authority over their
childrens monetary decision-making by providing financial incentives for good
behaviour or better academic performance. Such transactions seemed to be quite
common among the children we interviewed. While it appeared that parents
authority was seen to be legitimate and acceptable (Helwig & Kim, 1999), children
may not always be happy with their parents involvement.
Future research in this area may include refining the conceptual model of
childrens monetary decision-making through similar research with larger samples.
It will also be beneficial to conduct such research with students from different
cultural groups and in different contexts. How culture-dependent is childrens
decision-making, and how does it develop with age? What are the beliefs and values
that influence childrens monetary decisions? Research considering these questions
could provide substantial insights to assist in the design and implementation of
monetary decision-making skills in school curriculum.
Keywords
decision-making problem-solving meta-cognition
elementary school reasoning qualitative research
References
Abelson, R. P., & Levi, A. (1985). Decision making and decision theory. In G. Lindzey & E.
Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 231309). New York, NY: Random
House.
Baker, L. (1989). Metacognition, comprehension monitoring and the adult reader. Educational
Psychology Review, 1, 338.
Childrens use of meta-cognition in solving everyday problems 37
Baker, L., & Brown, A. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson, M. Kamil,
R. Barr & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (pp. 353394). New York,
NY: Longman.
Batha, K., & Carroll, M. (2007). Metacognitive training aids decision making. Australian
Journal of Psychology, 59(2), 6469.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2006). Education for the Knowledge Age. In P. A. Alexander
& P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 695713).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Berg, C. A., Strough, J., Calderone, K. S., Sansone, C., & Weir, C. (1998). The role of problem
definitions in understanding age and context effects on strategies for solving everyday
problems. Psychology and Aging, 13(1), 2944.
Brown, A. L. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce &
W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 453479). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 3242.
Byrnes, J. P. (1998). The nature and development of decision making: A self-regulated model.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Byrnes, J., Miller, D., & Reynolds, M. (1999). Learning to make good decisions: A self-
regulated perspective. Child Development, 70(5), 11211140.
Cianciolo, A. T., Grigorenko, E. L., Jarvin, L., Gil, G., Drebot, M. E., & Sternburg, R. J.
(2006). Practical intelligence and tacit knowledge: Advancements in the measurement
of developing expertise. Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 235253.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and
qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Cross, D. R., & Paris, S. G. (1988). Developmental and instructional analyses of childrens
metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2),
131142.
Davidson, J. E., & Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Smart problem solving: How metacognition helps.
In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory
and practice (pp. 4768). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Everson, H. T., & Tobias, S. (1998). The ability to estimate knowledge and performance in
college: A metacognitive analysis. Instructional Science, 26, 6579.
Flavell, J. H., Miller, P. H., & Miller, S. A. (2002). Cognitive development. Upper Saddle River.
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. New
York, NY: Basic.
Gummerum, M., Keller, M., Takezawa, M., & Mata, J. (2008). To give or not to give:
Childrens and adolescents sharing and moral negotiations in economic decision
situations. Child Development, 79(3), 562576.
Helwig, C., & Kim, S. (1999). Childrens evaluations of decision-making procedures in peer,
family, and school contexts. Child Development, 70(2), 502512.
Hennessey, M. G. (1999, August). Probing the dimensions of metacognition: Implications for
conceptual change teaching-learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.
38 Australian Journal of Education
Hennessey, M. G. (2003). Metacognitive aspects of students reflective discourse: Implications
for intentional conceptual teaching and learning. In G. M. Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich
(Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 103132). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hong, N. S., Jonassen, D. H., & McGee, S. (2003). Predictors of well-structured and ill-
structured problem solving in an astronomy simulation. Journal of Science Teaching,
40(1), 633.
Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Childrens metacognition about reading: Issues in
definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22, 255278.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1982). Thinking as a skill. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,
34A, 129.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 48(4), 6385.
Jonassen, D. H. (2004). Learning to solve problems: An instructional design guide. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jonassen, D. H. (2007). What makes scientific problems difficult? In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.),
Learning to solve complex scientific problems (pp. 323). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Jonassen, D., Tessmer, M. & Hannum W. (1999). Task analysis methods: For instructional design.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kitchner, K. S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and epistemistic cognition: A three-level
model of cognitive processing. Human Development, 26, 222232.
Lee, C. B., Teo, T., & Bergin, D. (2009). Childrens use of metacognition in solving everyday
problem: An initial study from an Asian context. Australian Educational Researcher
Journal, 36(3), 89104.
McGuigan, L., Qualter, A., & Schilling, M. (1993). Children, science and learning.
Investigating, 9(4), 2325.
McLain, K. V. M., Gridley, B. E., & McIntosh, D. (1991). Value of a scale used to measure
metacognitive reading processes. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 8187.
Ministry of Education (Singapore). (2010). MOE to enhance learning of 21st century competencies
and strengthen art, music and physical education. Press release. Retrieved from http://
www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/2010/03/moe-to-enhance-learning-of-21s.php
Osana, H. P., Tucker, B. J., & Bennett, T. (2003). Exploring adolescent decision making about
equity: Ill-structured problem solving in social studies. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 28, 357383.
Palinscar, A. M., & Brown, D. A. (1987). Enhancing instructional time through attention to
metacognition. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 6675.
Rennie, L. J., & Jarvis, T. (1995). Childrens choice of drawings to communicate their ideas
about technology. Research in Science Education, 25(3), 239252.
Schraw, G. (1994). The effects of metacognitive knowledge on local and global monitoring.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 143154.
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 19, 460475.
Schraw, G., & Nietfeld, J. (1998). A further test of the general monitoring skill hypothesis.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 236248.
Sinnott, J. D. (1989). A model for solution of ill-structured problems: Implications for
everyday and abstract problem solving. In J. D. Sinnott (Ed.), Everyday problem solving:
Theory and applications (pp. 7299). New York, NY: Praeger.
Childrens use of meta-cognition in solving everyday problems 39
Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Miller, L. A., & Murphy, C. (2002). Measures of childrens
knowledge and regulation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 5179.
Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Staley, R., & DuBois, N. (2004). Metacognition and self-
regulated learning constructs. Education Research and Evaluation, 10(2), 117139.
Sternberg, R. J. (2005). The theory of successful intelligence. Interamerican Journal of
Psychology, 39(2), 189202.
Stipek, D., Feiler, R., Daniels, D., & Milburn, S. (1995). Effects of different instructional
approaches on young childrens achievement and motivation. Child Development, 66,
209223.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990) Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and
techniques. London, UK: Sage.
Swanson, H. L. (1990). Influence of metacognitive knowledge and aptitude on problem
solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 306314.
Veenman, M. (2005). The assessment of metacognitive skills: What can be learned from
multi-method designs. In C. Artelt & B. Moschner (Eds.), Lernstrategien und
Metakognition. Implikationen fr Forschung und Praxis (pp. 77100). Mnster, Germany:
Waxmann.
Veenman, M., van Hout-Wolters, B., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning:
Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 314.
Authors
Chwee Beng Lee is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Education, University of
Western Sydney.
Email: chwee.lee@uws.edu.au
Noi Keng Koh is a Senior Lecturer at Nanyang Technical University, Singapore.
Xin Le Cai is a Research Assistant at Nanyang Technical University, Singapore.
Choon Lang Quek is an Associate Professor at Nanyang Technical University,
Singapore.
Copyright of Australian Journal of Education is the property of ACER Press and its content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.