Metacognition in Psychology

By Elisabeth Norman, Gerit Pfuhl, Rannveig Grøm Sæle, Frode Svartdal, Torstein Låg, Tove I. Dahl. Review of General Psychology, 2019

106 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How has the concept of metacognition been used within basic and applied psychological research? We begin our answer by presenting a broad definition of metacognition, a historical overview of its development and its presence in research databases. To assess which function and facets are most frequently addressed within each of the sub-disciplines, we present results from separate literature searches. We then review how metacognition has been defined and empirically explored within selected sub-disciplines in terms of typical research questions, conceptual definitions, how the concept has been measured, and examples of interesting findings and implications. We identify similarities, inconsistencies, and disagreements across fields and point out areas for future research. Our overall conclusion is that it is useful to consider metacognition as a broad umbrella concept across different domains and across basic and applied research. Nonetheless, we recommend that researchers be more specific and explicit about their approach and assumptions whenever using metacognition in their research.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Developmental and Educational Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/dd59269617c8fabb8054226e0983ef4556539e12

How researchers see this paper

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

In Cognitive Neuroscience

1. Lev Tankelevitch
2. Sean Rintel

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

1. Lev Tankelevitch
2. Sean Rintel

Citations in the corpus

• The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AI (2023, background): “From education [106] to management [90], health-care [36], and even sports [111], many research disciplines have carved out their own approach to metacognition, producing multiple inconsistent terminologies and frameworks (for reviews see [131, 181]).”