A study of 1,050 German students suggests that some young people develop a better understanding of learning strategies faster than others. Students who scored higher on an intelligence test showed greater growth in this ability during math classes.
The ability is known as metacognitive knowledge. It means understanding how your own mind works when you learn. It includes recognizing your strengths, predicting which tasks will be difficult and choosing a suitable strategy. For example, a student might know that summarizing a lesson in their own words helps them remember it better than simply reading it again.
Metacognitive knowledge has three main parts. The first is knowing facts about yourself as a learner. The second is knowing how to use a strategy. The third, called conditional knowledge, is knowing when and why to use it. The study focused on this third type because it can help predict how successfully students learn mathematics.
Led by Maria Theobald, the researchers examined data from 1,050 fifth graders at seven high-track secondary schools in southern Germany. The students were about 11 years old when the study began.
Their conditional metacognitive knowledge in mathematics was measured three times: at the beginning and end of fifth grade, and again at the end of sixth grade. Intelligence, initial math knowledge and math-related motivation were measured at the beginning of the study. The sample included students from both regular and gifted classes.
Overall, the students' metacognitive knowledge increased over time, although the rate of growth varied considerably. Those who had scored higher on the initial intelligence test tended to improve faster. Girls also showed greater growth than boys during the study period.
By contrast, students' starting math knowledge, motivation and class type were not associated with how quickly their conditional knowledge developed. This does not mean that motivation or math ability is unimportant to learning. It means only that these factors did not predict growth in the specific ability measured in this study.
The findings suggest that students differ not only in what they know, but also in how quickly they learn to select effective strategies. However, the study cannot prove that intelligence causes faster development. It found an association between the two.
The sample was also limited to seven high-track schools in one part of Germany, so the results may not apply equally to all students. Further research will be needed to understand whether the same pattern appears in different schools, age groups and subjects.