Talk:Metacognition

1st thread

needs wikification, and tone cleanup. at the moment it reads like a metacognition is the best thing since sliced bread. Zeimusu | Talk page 09:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It's worse than you think. Most of the article is copyvio, taken from [1]. The last version with no copyright problems was on March 6, 2005. I'm going to have to revert, unfortunately. I will try to preserve stuff that has been added since that date. —Caesura^(t) 21:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Caesura^(t) 21:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

still needs lots of clean up

the introductory section is still far too long and contains several errors. regarding the content, i feel the emphasis on the role of metacognition in learning is over-emphasized, or at least introduced too soon: i think the concept should be introduced first without bringing up its utility in the learning process in the same breath. also still needs to shift its tone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.109.183.207 (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Golly. This article really seems like it was written solely by someone in the Education department. It seems like the term should be defined more equitably as it is used in different fields, such as philosophy, neuroscience if applicable, psychology, etc. Unfortunately, I'm not qualified. Torgo 08:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Under "Linkage to Intelligence," I deleted the final sentence for what I claim are obvious reasons. It read "Well i think metacognition is knowing how you know what you know." Perhaps someone more qualified could turn that assertion into something sensible and well-explained and add it back to the section. ForgeGod —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.191.76 (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor clean-up

Based on the New Scientist article. It's all new to me, so I am not going to change anything else. --GwydionM 19:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Major clean-up

The material on metacognition is messy.DBSBHAT (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Defnition of Metacognition

Metacognition is the knowledge (i.e. awareness) of one's cognitive processes and the efficient use of this self-awareness to self-regulate these cognitive processes (e.g. Brown, 1987; Niemi, 2002; Shimamura, 2000). and random pointless stuff.

References

Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, excutive control, self control, and other mystrious mechanisms. In F. Weinert and R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, Motivation, and Understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Niemi, H. (2002) Active learning--a cultural change needed in teacher education and schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 763-780.

Shimamura, A. P. (2000). Toward a cognitive neuroscience of metacognition. Consciousness and Cognition, 9, 313-323. DBSBHAT (talk) 05:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the "thinking about thinking" back to "knowing about knowing" because those are the words of the referenced expert, not because I disagree with change. If someone wants to add an alternative to Metcalf's definition, they need to use a different source. — John Harvey, Wizened Web Wizard Wannabe, ^{Talk to me!} 20:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Grammatical or Logical error

This sentence is too broken for me to understand the original meaning:

Much of the existing research on metacognition, at least in the domain of experimental psychology, has and cognition work (which are frequently incorrect).

in "Linkage to Intelligence" 202.220.175.152 (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Spirituality

Shouldn't there be mention of spiritual stuff like meditation and so on which is only achieved by becoming conscious of ones thoughts? Th1alb (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, mindfulness, and other meditative techniques that involve observing the mental and emotional "traffic" of ones subjective experience, are all forms of metacognition. The question is, do we want to add this aspect of knowledge to this wiki article, or do we prefer it remain as it is at this point? AgentSmith 20:27, 20 March 2012 (NZT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.197.103 (talk)

Birds

This site http://metacognitionesf.free.fr/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=39 refers to (Smith et al., 2003), saying that they found Metacognition in birds. Anyone know about it? Showerplay (talk) 09:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Reads too much like an advertisement for a "train-your-brain" (and give us your money) outfit

This section -- "The theory that metacognition has a critical role to play in successful learning means it is important that it be demonstrated by both students and teachers. Students who demonstrate a wide range of metacognitive skills perform better on exams and complete work more efficiently. They are self-regulated learners who utilize the "right tool for the job" and modify learning strategies and skills based on their awareness of effectiveness. Individuals with a high level of metacognitive knowledge and skill identify blocks to learning as early as possible and change "tools" or strategies to ensure goal attainment. Metacognologists are aware of their own strengths and weaknesses, the nature of the task at hand, and available "tools" or skills. A broader repertoire of "tools" also assists in goal attainment. When "tools" are general, generic, and context independent, they are more likely to be useful in different types of learning situations." -- could be improved.

Small point: I don't think that "theory" "The theory that ..." etc is the right word here. It's really a belief, or an assertion.

Large point (related to small point): this is clear something that is believed by some people, but as it stands, it is just an assertion. It either needs to be modifed to read something like "Some people believe that ...", or it needs some citations to sources of evidence.

Doug1943 (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, metacognition isn't a theory, or even a mental process; it is a simple renaming of specific knowledge content. The assertion that metacognition "has a critical role to play" in successful learning (as opposed to unsuccessful learning?) requires some sort of support, preferably a citation to empirical research. I will assert that there is no firm evidence that metacognition has any role to play in learning. People have to self report their "metacognition" which results in many confounds (such as speaking skills and intelligence). Correlations between "metacognition" scores and learning performance do not establish that metacognition is affecting performance--we don't know that altering metacognition will improve learning. One reason research is confusing is the competing definitions of metacognition. Metacognition is simply specific knowledge. Metacognition is therefore not cognition because processing is not involved, it is merely a particular type of knowledge content--exactly what that content is, varies among researchers and proponents including, what I know, how I think, how I can solve problems, whether I get feedback, etc. Hence metacognition as a sort of chameleon nature in research. This situation means that a "criticisms" section is a must.Robotczar (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed new text

I have just finished my masters in psych, and during the past two years have attempted to create a "highly-rounded," well, metacognition of metacognition:

A person suffering from a lack of metacognition could be tagged by a good ventriloquist with "I must know the answer because I have a PhD." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.66.24 (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

What is metacognition?

Cognition commonly describes a small "piece of information" (such as in recognition) or a minor awareness or understanding (such as in cognizance). The term is used widely in relation to "behavior" such as in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, or CBT, and is also used to describe related mental functions in neurology.

What is important in this context is that modern cognitive and ancient dialect are interchangeable as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is affirmed as a "Socratic dialog." An important example is the CBT offshoot, Dialectical Behavioral Therapy used to treat so-called borderline personality disorder, which substitutes cognition with the dialectic--a ancient non-democratic (and hence oligarchic) method of deceptive teaching which is the cornerstone of Western Civilization. (Other closely-related variations are probably cornerstones of other civilizations, such as Confucius' didactic dialog.)

Using metaphysical as an example, "meta" means "super," and since physical means nature in the ancient context, metaphysical means supernatural, which, today, means paranormal. A meta-study, as another example of "meta," combines data from a collection of research projects, or a super study, perhaps better described with the German "uber." So a metacognition is a set of cogntions, often implanted or "introjected" by others such as parents and teachers (from Carl Rogers) to be organized such that it resembles what is perceived as reality, but is an alternative, as alternative ideas are the core of the Socratic dialog.

What is also important to understanding metacognition, is that many, if not most, metacogntions are not dialectic. They are seemingly natural adaptations to difficult situations where we "repaint" the picture of a reality (or perception) that is difficult to deal with so as to create an alternate reality (as in the Socratic method) that is much more pleasant, or at least easier to cope with. One "paints a pretty picture" of a recurring bad situation, which may include a "difficult" person's personality, so as to make life easier to approach in a cooperative manner. This, of course, is not reality; it is fantasy and thus an obvious problem arises: because one believes a fantasy, one is making decisions based on fantasy and not reality, and it is reasonable to assume that at a certain point, reality will come due, and when it does, it tends to come quickly and with bad effects. --John Bessa (talk) 13:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi John! Your degrees don't matter here. As for your text, the text on metacognition that exists right now has been created together by quite a few editors. It's not a good idea to exchange this cooperative job for the text that you have written all by yourself. Furthermore, your text is quite difficult to understand. On top of this, you didn't cite any sources.
So if you want to improve the article, start with what's already there, rewrite a sentence or a part, add a reference, and see what happens with it. Lova Falk talk 13:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The beauty of wiki is that everything is done in the context of wiki. The beauty of metacognition is that it is is best discussed in the context of metacognition because metacognition often describes the full functioning of a person such that that person may, in fact, be a metacognition. Because a metacognitive person's cognitions are perceived to be perfectly ordered, or rational, to that person, there is a tendency for others to attempt to order their thoughts in terms of the metacognitive persons cognitions. Perhaps attempting to enjoin a metacognitive persons cognitions is an attempt to empathize with a person whose only interrelation is cognizance. The above proposed text was originally constructed for a group of lobster fishermen last weekend on a wharf-to-boat discussion. They had no difficulty instantly comprehending this and disclosed examples in their own lives of metacognitions that they have constructed to "get through the day." This could be because they function beyond metacognition; that is to say that they are using more than two parts of the brain to think as the prefrontal cortex and the "Id" part of the limbic system are named in metacognitive cognitions. Soon I will be licensed to deal with metacognitions, but not yours--that would be a boundary violation, but thanks! I also hope to contribute text about metacognitive education (which is purely didactic) and the mind-to-brain interrelation underlying metacogntive therapy. --John Bessa (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Revising article to more closely reflect current research findings in the area of metacognition

I am planning on improving the quality of the article in the next few months or so. Suggestions, feedback and ideas are most welcome, and I must note that this project will likely take quite a while.

This article suffers from outdated hypotheses, internal inconsistencies (it proposes two metacognitive processes in the beginning, then goes on to describe three different processes), myriad propositions not suggested by any known research (and thus do not have in-text citations), conceptual confusions ("metacognition of metacognition", fortunately this one only found its way to the talk page), and so forth.

Further, there needs to be a discussion on whether certain topics are appropriate to the page at all (for example, Works of art as metacognitive artifacts). Should we allow different definitions of the topic of the wikipedia page within that wikipedia page?

The further reading section is also quite messy, and includes some pretty strange entries (some of them are good, but will surely find their way to the reference section once the page is updated). Quite a few of them are replicates from the proper reference section. I'm suggesting we remove the further reading section asap.

It would be great to get some work done on this by the APS wikiproject.

CabbageX (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

As a learning tool...

I wish they taught metacognition or learning theory courses (in addition to reading/writing/arithmetic) when we were growing up. Kids were expected to learn, but rarely taught how to learn; perhaps then kids would have more confidence instead of tuning out or dropping out. --76.175.67.121 (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

A new "Critique" section is needed!

It seems very likely that good scientific and theoretical critiques of this concept have been published. They should be summarized and cited in this article. In particular, readers need to know 1-Are there good measures --- objective tests -- of metacognition. If so, do they agree with each other? Alternately, is it possible that metacognition takes multiple forms that do not correlate much with each other? 2-The article juxtaposes IQ and metacognition, but passes lightly over this topic. There must be some positive correlation between IQ and IQ. This should be explained, at least briefly. 3-To what extent does metacognition reflect personality traits, particularly in relation to the five-factor model? It seems plausible that metacognition might reflect Neuroticism (negative emotionality might overwhelm higher cognitive processes for example), Agreeableness (high-A people are less skeptical, more gullible, and therefore, perhaps less meta-cognitive), or Conscientiousness (High-C people are more deliberative and orderly).

C'mon folks. We can do better. 2602:306:CDB2:4860:45D8:F0AB:BDFE:FD03 (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Person knowledge

An example of Person knowledge could be added to make more sense and be more definitive for the reader. For example, instead of "Person knowledge (declarative knowledge) which is understanding one's own capabilities,", it could say Person knowledge (declarative knowledge) is the understanding of one's own capabilities such as a student evaluating his/her own knowledge of a subject in a class." Also I think it would be beneficial to outline that not all metacognition, especially Person knowledge is correct or accurate. Students often believe they understand concepts after easier methods of studying while they feel no better after repetition and constant evaluation of the material. Studies show, however, that the revaluation and constant revisiting of the knowledge is more beneficial to understanding the concepts. Would this be ok to change? Also a better term for Person knowledge could be used. Thanks Cproctor23 (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Christopher Proctor

I think what you said (about clarifying that not all metacognition is correct) is important. Perhaps, you could talk about desirable difficulties and even link to the article that is currently under construction. Stephanie Parrado (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Meta means BEYOND, so the definition is false

"Thinking ABOUT thinking" is not "BEYOND thinking", isn't it? It is still thinking. Consciousness is beyond thinking. Shouldn't this article be going more in the direction of awareness, self-control, willpower, emotional intelligence, prefrontal cortex, von economo neurons etc.? -Just saying, yours sincerely Ranz Kafka — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.244.190.205 (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)