Metacognition, the ability to assess one’s own knowledge, has been targeted as a critical learning mechanism in mathematics education. Yet the early childhood origins of metacognition have proven difficult to study. Using a novel nonverbal task and a comprehensive set of metacognitive measures, we provided the strongest evidence to date that young children are metacognitive. We showed that children as young as 5 years made metacognitive “bets” on their numerical discriminations in a wagering task. However, contrary to previous reports from adults, our results showed that children’s metacognition is domain specific: Their metacognition in the numerical domain was unrelated to their metacognition in another domain (emotion discrimination). Moreover, children’s metacognitive ability in only the numerical domain predicted their school-based mathematics knowledge. The data provide novel evidence that metacognition is a fundamental, domain-dependent cognitive ability in children. The findings have implications for theories of uncertainty and reveal new avenues for training metacognition in children.
BalcombF. K.GerkenL. (2008). Three-year-old children can access their own memory to guide responses on a visual matching task. Developmental Science, 11, 750–760. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00725.x
2.
BeckJ. M.MaW. J.KianiR.HanksT.ChurchlandA. K.RoitmanJ.. . . PougetA. (2008). Probabilistic population codes for Bayesian decision making. Neuron, 60, 1142–1152. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2008.09.021
3.
BelhumeurP. N.HespanhaJ. P.KriegmanD. J. (1997). Eigenfaces vs. Fisherfaces: Recognition using class specific linear projection. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 19, 711–720.
4.
BorkowskiJ. G. (1992). Metacognitive theory: A framework for teaching literacy, writing, and math skills. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 253–257. doi:10.1177/002221949202500406
5.
CantlonJ. F. (2012). Math, monkeys, and the developing brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 109(Suppl. 1), 10725–10732.
6.
CarrM.BiddlecombB. (1998). Metacognition in mathematics from a constructivist perspective. In HackerD. J.DunloskyJ.GraesserA. C. (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 69–91). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
7.
de BruinA. B. H.van GogT. (2012). Improving self-monitoring and self-regulation: From cognitive psychology to the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 22, 245–252. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.01.003
8.
DunloskyJ.BjorkR. A. (2008). The integrated nature of metamemory and memory. In DunloskyJ.BjorkR. A. (Eds.), Handbook of metamemory and memory (pp. 11–28). Hillsdale, NJ: Psychology Press.
9.
DunloskyJ.RawsonK. A. (2011). Overconfidence produces underachievement: Inaccurate self evaluations undermine students’ learning and retention. Learning and Instruction, 22, 271–280. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.003
10.
FlavellJ. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.
11.
FlavellJ. H.GreenF. L.EleanorR. (2000). Development of children’s awareness of their own thoughts. Journal of Cognition and Development, 1, 97–112. doi:10.1207/S15327647JCD0101N
12.
FlemingS. M.DolanR. J. (2012). The neural basis of metacognitive ability. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367, 1338–1349. doi:10.1098/rstb.2011.0417
13.
GalvinS. J.PoddJ. V.DrgaV.WhitmoreJ. (2003). Type 2 tasks in the theory of signal detectability: Discrimination between correct and incorrect decisions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 843–876.
14.
GarnerR.AlexanderP. A. (1989). Metacognition: Answered and unanswered questions. Educational Psychologist, 24, 143–158.
15.
GarofaloJ.LesterF. K. (1985). Metacognition, cognitive monitoring, and mathematical performance. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16, 163–176.
16.
GinsburgH. P.BaroodyA. J. (2003). Test of Early Mathematical Ability (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
HairJ. F.AndersonR. E.TathamR. L.BlackW. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
19.
HamptonR. R. (2009). Multiple demonstrations of metacognition in nonhumans: Converging evidence or multiple mechanisms?Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews, 4, 17–28. doi:10.3819/ccbr.2009.40002
20.
KaufmanA. S.KaufmanN. L. (2004). Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
21.
KelemenW. L.FrostP. J.WeaverC. A. (2000). Individual differences in metacognition: Evidence against a general metacognitive ability. Memory & Cognition, 28, 92–107.
22.
KelemenW. L.WinninghamR. G.WeaverC. A. (2007). Repeated testing sessions and scholastic aptitude in college students’ metacognitive accuracy. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 689–717.
23.
KellyK. J.MetcalfeJ. (2011). Metacognition of emotional face recognition. Emotion, 11, 896–906. doi:10.1037/a0023746
24.
KianiR.ShadlenM. N. (2009). Representation of confidence associated with a decision by neurons in the parietal cortex. Science, 324, 759–764. doi:10.1126/science.1169405
25.
KnillD. C.PougetA. (2004). The Bayesian brain: The role of uncertainty in neural coding and computation. Trends in Neurosciences, 27, 712–719. doi:10.1016/j.tins.2004.10.007
26.
KoriatA.AckermanR. (2010). Choice latency as a cue for children’s subjective confidence in the correctness of their answers. Developmental Science, 13, 441–453. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00907.x
27.
KoriatA.Shitzer-ReichertR. (2002). Metacognitive judgments and their accuracy: Insights from the processes underlying judgments of learning in children. In ChambresP.IzauteM.MarescauxP.-J. (Eds.), Metacognition: Processes, function, and use (pp. 1–17). Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
28.
KornbrotD. E. (2006). Signal detection theory, the approach of choice: Model-based and distribution-free measures and evaluation. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 393–414.
29.
KornellN.SonL. K.TerraceH. S. (2007). Transfer of metacognitive skills and hint seeking in monkeys. Psychological Science, 18, 64–71. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01850.x
30.
KuhnD. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 178–181.
31.
LevinI. P.WellerJ. A.PedersonA. A.HarshmanL. A. (2007). Age-related differences in adaptive decision making: Sensitivity to expected value in risky choice. Judgment and Decision Making, 2, 225–233.
32.
LyonsK. E.GhettiS. (2010). Metacognitive development in early childhood: New questions about old assumptions. In EfklidesA.MisailidiP. (Eds.), Trends and prospects in metacognition research (pp. 259–278). Boston, MA: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-6546-2
33.
MaW. J.BeckJ. M.LathamP. E.PougetA. (2006). Bayesian inference with probabilistic population codes. Nature Neuroscience, 9, 1432–1438. doi:10.1038/nn1790
34.
MassonM. E. J.RotelloC. M. (2009). Sources of bias in the Goodman-Kruskal gamma coefficient measure of association: Implications for studies of metacognitive processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 509–527. doi:10.1037/a0014876
35.
MetcalfeJ.KornellN. (2007). Principles of cognitive science in education: The effects of generation, errors, and feedback. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 225–229.
36.
MillerP. H.BigiL. (1989). The development of children’s understanding of attention. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Development, 25, 235–250.
37.
MyersM. I.ParisS. G. (1978). Children’s metacognitive knowledge about reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 680–690.
38.
NelsonT. O. (1984). A comparison of current measures of the accuracy of feeling-of-knowing predictions. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 109–133.
39.
NelsonT. O.NarensL. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In BowerG. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 26, pp. 125–173). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
40.
PougetA.BeckJ. M.MaW. J.LathamP. E. (2013). Probabilistic brains: Knowns and unknowns. Nature Neuroscience, 16, 1170–1178. doi:10.1038/nn.3495
41.
PressleyM.BorkowskiJ. G.SchneiderW. (1987). Cognitive strategies: Good strategy users coordinate metacognition and knowledge. In VastaR. (Ed.), Annals of child development (Vol. 4, pp. 89–129). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
42.
ReynaV. F. (1996). Conceptions of memory development with implications for reasoning and decision making. In VastaR. (Ed.), Annals of child development (Vol. 12, pp. 87–118). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
43.
SchneiderW. (2008). The development of metacognitive knowledge in children and adolescents: Major trends and implications for education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 2, 114–121. doi:10.1111/j.1751-228X.2008.00041.x
44.
SchoenfeldA. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. In GrouwsD. A. (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). New York, NY: Macmillan.
45.
SchoenfeldA. H. (2006). Mathematics teaching and learning. In AlexanderP. A.WinneP. H. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 479–510). New York, NY: Routledge.
46.
SchrawG.DunkleM. E.BendixenL. D.RoedelT. D. (1995). Does a general monitoring skill exist?Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 433–444.
47.
SchrawG.RoedelT. D. (1994). Test difficulty and judgment bias. Memory & Cognition, 22, 63–69.
48.
SonL. K. (2010). Metacognitive control and the spacing effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 255–262. doi:10.1037/a0017892
49.
SussanD.SonL. K. (2007). The training of metacognitive monitoring in children. Columbia Undergraduate Science Journal, 2(1), 98–109.
50.
VeenmanM. V. J.SpaansM. A. (2005). Relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills: Age and task differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 15, 159–176. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2004.12.001
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
