Table Of ContentDespina Moraitou
Panayiota Metallidou Editors
Trends and
Prospects in
Metacognition
Research across
the Life Span
A Tribute to Anastasia Efklides
Trends and Prospects in Metacognition Research
across the Life Span
(cid:129)
Despina Moraitou Panayiota Metallidou
Editors
Trends and Prospects
in Metacognition Research
across the Life Span
A Tribute to Anastasia Efklides
Editors
DespinaMoraitou PanayiotaMetallidou
SchoolofPsychology SchoolofPsychology
AristotleUniversityofThessaloniki AristotleUniversityofThessaloniki
Thessaloniki,Greece Thessaloniki,Greece
ISBN9783030516727 ISBN9783030516734 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/9783030516734
©SpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG2021
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpartofthe
materialisconcerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,reuseofillustrations,recitation,
broadcasting,reproductiononmicrofilmsorinanyotherphysicalway,andtransmissionorinformation
storageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilarmethodology
nowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,servicemarks,etc.inthispublication
doesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfromtherelevant
protectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
The publisher, the authors, and the editorsare safeto assume that the adviceand informationin this
bookarebelievedtobetrueandaccurateatthedateofpublication.Neitherthepublishernortheauthorsor
theeditorsgiveawarranty,expressedorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinorforany
errorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.Thepublisherremainsneutralwithregardtojurisdictional
claimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations.
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG.
Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland
Preface and Tribute to Anastasia Efklides
In the book Trends and Prospects in Metacognition Research (Efklides and
Misailidi 2010), there were two main parts, the first presenting basic research on
thenatureandfunctioningofmetacognitionandthesecondonethedevelopmentof
metacognition and educational implications of metacognition research. Since then,
researchonmetacognition hasprogressed andofferedsolidevidenceonthemech-
anisms underlying the functioning of metacognition as well as the effectiveness of
metacognitive regulation in learning. Yet, there is also growing awareness that
metacognitive monitoringisofteninaccurate andmetacognitiveregulation ineffec-
tive.Thus,newquestionsariseandmetacognitionresearchfacesnewchallenges.
Tenyearslater,inthisvolume,someofthetrendsalreadyfeaturingthenarestill
present,butthereisamajorshiftofinterestfrommetacognitionpersetometacog-
nitionanditsinteractionswithaffect.Also,metacognitiveregulationisnowseenas
a constituent of self- and co- and/or shared regulation, which stresses, firstly, the
interactions between metacognition, motivation, and emotions, and, secondly, that
metacognitionandmetacognitiveregulationisnotapurelyindividualphenomenon
but has a strong social nature. Such a social perspective on metacognition has
implicationsfor educationandtheroleofteacherandpeers assourcesoffeedback
thatimpactmetacognitivemonitoringandcontrol.Thedevelopmentofmetacogni-
tion is also viewed through the lens of affect and social influences. Looking at
development as a lifelong process, it becomes clear that changes in metacognition
take place in the lifespan and interactions of metacognition with motivation and
affect are evident in self-regulation from early childhood to old age. This has
implications for the construction of intervention programs for young students but
also older adults who see their cognitive efficiency to decrease. Finally, another
domaininwhichmetacognitionhasnotbeenextensivelystudiediscreativity,which,
along with giftedness, is another challenge for research in metacognition. This
overview of the field does not cover other also important research developments
suchastheneuroscienceofmetacognition.Thefocusofthisvolume,however,was
inspired by the work of Anastasia Efklides, professor emerita of psychology in
v
vi PrefaceandTributetoAnastasiaEfklides
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece, and one of the editors of the volume
publishedin2010.
Thus, the aim of this volume was, besides bringing to the fore trends and
prospects in metacognition research in the last ten years, to also offer a tribute to
Anastasia Efklides, a mentor of the editors of this volume and many young
researchers in the field, and a theorist who has foreseen in her work some of the
developmentstakingplaceinmetacognitionresearchinthelastdecade.Specifically,
Anastasia Efklides’ research was inspired by Flavell’s (1979) seminal article that
posited three facets of metacognition, namely, metacognitive experiences,
metacognitive knowledge, and metacognitive strategies (skills). She, particularly,
focused on metacognitive experiences (feelings, judgments, online metacognitive
knowledge) (see Efklides 2006, 2008) but with an emphasis on the feeling of
difficultyandtheestimate(orjudgment)ofeffort,whichbothhaveametacognitive
but also a motivational and an affective character. This perspective allowed her to
integrate in her theorizing different research traditions and theoretical frameworks
ranging from metamemory to motivation and affect as sources of feeling of diffi-
culty,estimateofeffort,andconfidence.
Studying metacognitive feelings led her in two theoretical directions: one, an
enrichedmodelofmetacognition(Efklides2008)thatexpandedtheoneproposedby
Nelson(1996),andtheother,amodelofself-regulatedlearningthatpositedrelations
between metacognition, motivation, and affect [the Metacognitive and Affective
Model of Self-Regulated Learning (MASRL); Efklides 2011]. Specifically, the
enriched model of metacognition proposes three levels of functioning of metacog-
nition: the nonconscious, the personal awareness, and the social level. In the
nonconscious level,monitoringand control functionoutof theperson’s awareness
but may inform the personal level awareness in the form of metacognitive experi-
ences(e.g.,metacognitivefeelingsandjudgments).Thepersonalawarenesslevelof
metacognition refers to the person becoming aware of his/her own thinking and
learning and the subjective experiences (i.e., metacognitive experiences and
metacognitive knowledge) that go with cognitive processing. Control is exercised
by the individual on her/his thinking based on these subjective experiences. The
thirdisthesociallevelofmetacognitivefunctioning,whichisbasedonreflectionon
one’sownvis-à-visotherpeople’smetacognitiveexperiences,metacognitiveknowl-
edge,andmetacognitiveskills.Thisallowscommunicationbetweenindividualsata
meta level, reflection and analysis of metacognitive products, and exercising of
controlinaco-orsharedregulationmanner.Thisleveloffunctioningofmetacog-
nition is present in the interactions between parents and children, teachers and
students, and peers, as well as between researchers of metacognitive phenomena
andthedevelopmentofthescienceofmetacognition.
TheMASRLmodel,ontheotherhand,expandstheconceptualizationofpersonal
awareness as a level that comprises not only metacognitive experiences but also
motivational and affective experiences (emotions, moods, motivational feelings,
e.g., effort exertion) (Efklides 2011, 2016, 2018). Although metacognition is
involved in the regulation of cognition, and affective regulation in the regulation
ofaffectandeffort,thereareinteractionsbetweenthetworegulatorysystemsbased
PrefaceandTributetoAnastasiaEfklides vii
ontheawarenessofsubjectivestatesduringtaskprocessing.Forexample,feelingof
difficultyduringtaskprocessingmayinformmetacognitivecontrolforstrategyuse
butalsomotivationalcontrolbasedontheperceivedcostthattheneededeffortmay
confer. Furthermore, being in positive or negative mood modulates feeling of
difficulty and, hence, the perceived cost and subsequent decision on the kind of
regulation (metacognitive, motivational, or affective) needed. However, subjective
experiences are not conceived of as sole products of cognitive and affective
processing. They are also influenced by personal characteristics (cognitive,
metacognitive, motivational, and affective) as traits. Self-regulation, from this
point of view, is task-specific but also a manifestation of stability and continuity
of the self as the organizing principle that integrates the past, the present, and the
future.
In this context, the chapters in this volume are representative of research that
argues for a more comprehensive conception of the person as a social being that
builds on own and others’ metacognitive, motivational, and emotional experiences
to self-, co-, or shared regulation in learning situations or challenges faced in the
lifespan development. The volume has been organized along three parts: (I) the
mechanism underlying the relations between metacognition and affect,
(II) metacognition and affect in self- and co-regulation, and (III) metacognition
andaffectinthelifespandevelopment.
Part I: The Mechanism Underlying the Relations Between
Metacognition and Affect
ThispartofthevolumestartswiththechapterbyWitherby,Tauber,andDunlosky
titled “Why do Emotional Stimuli Influence Judgments of Learning? Theory, Evi-
dence, and Future Directions.” Starting from Efklides’ contribution on the role of
affect and emotions in self-monitoring processes, the authors try to uncover the
mechanism that underlies the influence of emotion on individuals’ monitoring
judgments.Theyfirstreviewanddiscussevidencefortheemotionalsalienceeffect
onthemagnitudeofjudgmentsoflearning(JOLs)and,then,introduceatheoretical
modelforexplainingtheaboveeffect.Theystartfromthemaintheoreticalassump-
tion of JOL theories that JOLs are largely inferential and they are influenced by a
numberofavailablecuesviatwomechanisms:(a)people’sbeliefsabouttheirown
andothers’learningand(b)experiencesorfeelingsthataretriggeredduringonline
processing of the learningmaterial. They present evidence which showsthat, even
thoughpeople’sbeliefsandexperiences(eitherfluencyorarousal)duringprocessing
can explain at least a portion of emotional salience effects on JOLs, the existing
evidencedoesnotclearlyestablishtheproposedtheoreticalpathways,leavingample
spaceforfutureresearchinthearea.Theauthorsemphasizetheneedtoinvestigate
the influence of stimulus valence or/and mood on other metacognitive judgments,
suchasthefeelingofknowingandconfidencejudgments,aswellastheneedtouse
viii PrefaceandTributetoAnastasiaEfklides
multiplemeasuresinordertoevaluatethecombinedinfluenceofprocessingfluency
andphysiologicalarousalduringtheprocessingofemotionalstimuli.Further,they
arguethatanindividualdifferencesperspectiveshouldbeincludedinfutureempir-
ical attempts to evaluate the magnitude of contribution of each of the above
mechanismstopeople’smonitoringjudgments.
In the next chapter titled “The role of fluency and dysfluency in metacognitive
experience,”SchwartzandJemstedtcontinuethediscussionontheroleofperceptual
and retrieval fluency as primary sources of accurate and inaccurate metacognitive
judgments. They acknowledge, as Witherby, Tauber, and Dunlosky did in the
previous chapter, the discrete influence of both processing fluency and beliefs on
thelearningjudgments aswellasa fluency x beliefs interaction effect, despite this
stillbeinghardtopinpoint.Theauthorsreviewevidencethatsupportstheimpactof
processing fluency on metacognition, indicating either its adaptive or its distorting
functionforself-regulatedlearning.Inparticular,theyshowhowprocessingfluency
mayleadustoinaccuratecontroldecisionsviaincreasesinthemetacognitivefeeling
of confidence. They stress, thus, the need for studying metacognitive illusions,
namelysituationsinwhichourmetacognitivejudgmentsdonotaccuratelymonitor
our learning process and performance, in order to uncover the mechanisms under-
lyingmetacognitivemonitoringandcontroldecisions.
Whereasthefocusofthetwopreviouschapterswasontheexperiencesorfeelings
that are triggered during processing of the material to be learnt, Vogl, Pekrun, and
Loderer in the next chapter titled “Epistemic emotionsand metacognitive feelings”
discuss similarities, differences, and links between epistemic emotions and
metacognitive feelings. They argue that, while both share common features, such
asanaffectivecoreexperienceandtheireffectsoncognitiveprocessing,theydiffer
in terms of their functions and their constituents. They acknowledge, though, that
therearenotestablishedyetclear-cutboundariesbetweenthem,whichcoulddirect
futureresearchinthearea.Theypresentempiricalevidencethatsupportsthecritical
role of metacognitive feelings, especially that of feeling of confidence, in the
formation and experience of epistemic states that are affectively charged, such as
surprise, curiosity, and confusion. At the end of the chapter, the authors argue that
studyingthelinksbetweenmetacognitivefeelingsandepistemicemotionsisavery
promising research area and draw our attention to many open questions for future
study,concerningthefunctionandconstituentsoflessstudiedepistemicstates,such
asdoubt,therelationsofepistemicemotionswithothermetacognitivefeelings,such
asthefeelingofknowing,aswellastheirdistinctinfluencesoncognitiveprocessing,
motivation,andbehavior.
In the last chapter of Part I titled “Metacognitive experience across the creative
process,”Antonietti,Cancer,Colombo,andIannellodiscusstheroleofmetacogni-
tioninthelessstudiedandchallengingdomainofcreativity.Theystartbyidentify-
ing the specific cognitive mechanisms that are involved in creative thinking and
presenttheirWCRmodel,whichinvolvesthreemajormentaloperationsincreative
thinking, namely, widening, connection, and reorganization of the mental field.
Having this model as a basis for inquiry, they review and discuss evidence about
the possible role of different facets of metacognition, that is, knowledge,
PrefaceandTributetoAnastasiaEfklides ix
experiences,andcontrolinfosteringcreativity.Inthelastpartofthechapter,theytry
to answer the question if metacognitive awareness is beneficial in increasing the
levelofcreativitybypresentingevidencefromacreativethinkingtrainingprogram
thatusesmetacognitivepromptsinasampleofprimaryschoolchildren.Theresults
showed that training in activating the above three basic mental creative operations
increased children’s creative skills. Further, the group that was prompted to reflect
on the way they worked in various activities, i.e., reflecting on their ability, effort,
and liking the task before and after their involvement, outperformed the control
group only in one aspect of creativity: that of widening their mental field. At the
same time, the above metacognitive prompts were found to hinder reorganization.
Theauthorshighlighttheneedforfurtherresearchinthefield,inordertodelimitthe
beneficial or detrimental influences different facets of metacognition and different
levels of metacognitive functioning may have on creative processes according to
Efklides’model.
Part II: Metacognition and Affect in Self- and Co-regulation
Thechaptersinthispartofthevolumefocusonthefunctioningofmetacognitionin
thesociallevelandprovideevidenceforthedynamicinterplayofmetacognitionand
affect in educational settings. Vauras, Volet, and Iiskala in the chapter titled
“Socially-shared metacognitive regulation incollaborative science learning” build
on Efklides’ initial idea that metacognition and metacognitive regulation is not a
purelyindividualphenomenonbuthasastrongsocialnature.Theydiscussconcep-
tualization issues of social regulation of cognition and, then, they select the chal-
lengingareaofsciencelearningandpresentevidenceontheroleofsociallyshared
metacognitive regulation (SSMR) in different collaborative science learning envi-
ronments.Theyprovideadetailedreviewoftheempiricaldatafromtheirownand
others’workinthelastfifteenyearsforthemostcriticalelementsoftheSSMR,such
as the focus, the functions and the triggering factors of SSMR, as well as the
relationship of SSMR and desired learning outcomes. Specifically, they point out
the complexity of the relations between SSMR and learning outcomes, due to
possiblemediatingfactorsrelatedtothetypeofthetaskandthefocusandfunctions
ofSSMR.Further,theyarguethatconceptualunderstandingisevidencedasthemost
important focus of SSMR for quality learning outcomes with the metacognitive
experiences as one of the most crucial triggers for this kind of SSRM. Facing
(socio)cognitiveconflictsandreceivingerrorfeedbackfromothersincollaborative
learningcontextsareacknowledgedastheothertwocriticaltriggersofSSMR.They
highlighttheneedforevidenceontheroleofaffectivereactionsaspartoftheSSMR
process and the role of feedback as a trigger factor for accurate monitoring and
controldecisionsinSSMR.
The following two chapters provide evidence for the role of affect in self- and
co-regulationoflearninginthedomainofmathproblemsolving,whilethelasttwo
chapters of Part II discuss evidence for the role of feedback from teachers and
x PrefaceandTributetoAnastasiaEfklides
parents in fostering children’s SRL skills in school and home. Specifically, the
chapter by Singh and Muis, titled “The role of social emotions and co-regulation
of learning during complex math problem solving,” provides empirical evidence
regarding the role of affect in monitoring and control decisions in collaborative
learning contexts. The authors discuss the antecedents and consequences of social
emotions in collaborative learning, in the area of complex math problem solving.
Usingatriangulatedmulti-methodapproachofself-reports,discourseanalysis,and
individual interviews, they provide evidence for the role of social emotion in
co-regulatory processes in a group of elementary students. The results of their
study indicate the significant role of task value and perceived control beliefs as
antecedentsofsocialemotions.Theyseemtoserveasbuffersagainstdisengagement
fromthelearningactivity.Further,socialemotionsareprecededbysocialappraisals,
such as being competent, autonomous, and related to the social context. These
appraisals, in turn, affect co-regulatory processes and the social emotions function
as mediators of the feelings of relatedness and the use of functional co-regulatory
strategies.Theauthorsdiscusstheeducationalimplicationsofthefindingsandpoint
outtheimportantroleofteachersincommunicatingtotheirstudents(eitherexplic-
itly or by modeling) all the necessary information as regards the functions, the
processes,andthebenefitsofSRLandCoRL.
Kramarski,Tzohar-Rozen,andGadasiintheirchaptertitled“Metacognitionand
meta-Emotion in kindergarten: Is the combination necessary for self-regulation in
mathematical problem solving?” provide empirical evidence from an intervention
study that does not only engage children in interactive learning environments with
theemphasisoncontent-relatedlearning,but,instead,itexplicitlyteachesthemhow
to regulate their cognitive, metacognitive, and emotional aspects of learning, espe-
ciallywhentheyhavetodealwithcomplexproblem-solvingtasks.Specifically,they
discuss the necessity of applying interventions that simultaneously support the
metacognitive and the affective aspects of SRL even from kindergarten. They
provide empirical evidence of the effectiveness of a combined metacognitive and
emotional support (MES) program in the domain of mathematics as compared to
onlyametacognitivesupport(MS)andacontrol(noSRLsupport)program.While
both intervention programs increased children’s performance and verbal
metacognitivestatementsalongthethreephasesofSRL(planning,monitoringand
control,andevaluation),thecombinedMESgroupshowedthegreatestlastinggains
two months after the intervention, especially in the complex tasks. Further, the
combined MES group showed the greatest immediate as well as lasting gains in
emotional regulation as compared to both MS and control programs. They also
discuss the need to give time to the system to assimilate the metacognitive and
emotional regulation strategies in order to use them in future learning experiences.
They highlight that SRL skills need time to develop and improve, especially in
youngchildren.
The next two chapters review evidence on the role of teachers’ and parents’
practices tofoster children’sSRL skills indifferent learningcontexts. Specifically,
van Loon and Roebers in the chapter titled “Using feedback to support children
whenmonitoringandcontrollingtheirlearning”presentanoverviewofresearchon
