” Metacognition ” is often simply defined as “thinking about thinking.”
According to Merriam-Webster, Metacognition is ” awareness or analysis of one’s own learning or thinking processes.
For example: research on metacognition … has demonstrated the value of monitoring one’s own cognitive processes — Colette A. Daiute
According to Nancy Chick, CFT Assistant Director At Vanderbilt University, “”Metacognitive practices increase students’ abilities to transfer or adapt their learning to new contexts and tasks (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, p. 12; Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Scardamalia et al., 1984; Schoenfeld, 1983, 1985, 1991). They do this by gaining a level of awareness above the subject matter: they also think about the tasks and contexts of different learning situations and themselves as learners in these different contexts. When Pintrich (2002) asserts that “Students who know about the different kinds of strategies for learning, thinking, and problem solving will be more likely to use them” (p. 222), notice the students must “know about” these strategies, not just practice them. As Zohar and David (2009) explain, there must be a “conscious meta-strategic level of H[igher] O[rder] T[hinking]” (p. 179).”
According toPaving a clear path in a thick forest: a conceptual analysis of a metacognitive component, “The concept of metacognition refers to one’s knowledge and control of one’s own cognitive system. However, despite being widely used, this concept is confusing because of several reasons. First, sometimes it is not at all clear what is cognitive and what is metacognitive. Second, researchers often use the same term, namely, “metacognition” even when they refer to very different aspects of this complex concept. Alternatively, researchers may use different terms to indicate the same metacognitive elements. Another foggy matter is the interrelationships among the various components of metacognition discussed in the literature. This conceptual confusion regarding the concept of metacognition and its sub-components calls for in-depth theoretical and conceptual clarifications. The goal of this article is to portray a detailed example of a conceptual analysis of meta-strategic knowledge (MSK) which is one specific component of metacognition. This specific example is used to draw a general model for conceptual analyses of additional metacognitive components. The approach suggested here is to begin with a clear definition of the target sub component of metacognition, followed by a systematic examination of this sub component according to several dimensions that are relevant to metacognition in general and to that sub component in particular. The examination should include an analysis of how the details of the definition of the target sub-component refer to: (a) general theoretical metacognitive issues raised by prominent scholars; (b) definitions formulated and issues raised by other researchers who have investigated the same (or a similar) sub-component and, (c) empirical findings pertaining to that sub-component. Finally, it should be noted that since metacognition is a relational rather than a definite concept it is important to situate the context within which the conceptual analysis takes place.”