metacognitive essay reflection

Making Metacognition Part of Student Writing

When students are encouraged to think deeply about their writing processes, they become better writers.

Your content has been saved!

Writing conferences are a staple in many English language arts classrooms today. Teachers recognize the benefit of conversational feedback, allowing students to feel more agency over their own writing, and the power of building rapport that comes with conferences.

In my own classroom, I’ve been on the journey of incorporating writing conferences for over a decade, and they have changed drastically from when I first began. I’ve transitioned from doing most of the talking to students doing more and more sharing. Recently, my thinking on writing conferences has shifted again. After realizing that our conferences were primarily centered on a piece with little to no reflection on the thought process of writing, I added a new layer of complexity. 

Metacognitive Reflection

Metacognition is a term that describes thinking about one’s thinking as a means of reflection. The goal is for students to think more about the process—how they approach writing, barriers to good writing, and strategies that help them write successfully—instead of focusing only on content or rubric requirements. Metacognitive reflection can awaken students to be more aware of their thinking during writing, resulting in a deeper understanding of who they are as writers and of how to transfer their knowledge to any genre of writing. 

So what exactly does metacognitive thinking on writing look like, and how can teachers build this type of reflection into writing conferences?

A whole-class conversation about the importance of metacognition is a good starting place, since students are often focused on assignments rather than their thinking while completing them. These strategies can help students become aware of their thinking while writing and are easy to incorporate in assignments, providing students with opportunities to pause and think about their thinking while writing. Observations from these activities will enable students to talk about metacognition during conferences. 

6 Activities to Encourage Metacognition

1. Keeping a journal. Encourage students to take metacognitive breaks of two to three minutes during writing to record their thoughts. Describe your process to this point . What was a barrier to your writing? How did you overcome this? What do you think you could do to prevent this from occurring next time? These breaks can and should occur at different points in the writing process. 

2. Recording troubleshooting ideas. Encourage students to keep a list of strategies and ideas they have found successful in the past that they can use during writing to help them push through when they’re experiencing difficulty.

3. Writing collaboratively. Provide opportunities for students to work on writing assignments together. The students can discuss why they are making the choices they make along the way. Thoughts can be addressed in comments in a Google Doc or on sticky notes placed on the student’s paper. 

4. Using graphic organizers. Graphic organizers can also serve as tools to guide students to think about their thinking while writing and to identify successful strategies. The object is not to fill the entire graphic organizer but to provide multiple entry points to think about their thinking while writing. 

5. Highlighting papers. I often have students highlight papers for claims, evidence, and analysis, but this can be modified for any focus. This strategy adds a visual component to reflection and opens opportunities for students to think about what leads to strong components of a piece and why other components are weaker.

6. Recording post-writing thoughts. Writing a paragraph on the thought process during an assignment can be particularly helpful for the big-picture process. What would you do differently if writing again? Why? What would you keep the same? Why? What strategies did you employ that worked well that you can use for future writing?

The insights gathered from these metacognitive tools can carry over into writing conversations. In your next writing conferences, try adding some of the italicized questions to questions already commonly asked to gather insight and give input into the thought process behind the writing. 

• What do you like best about this writing? Why do you think this section is strong? What did you notice as you were writing this section? 
• Where did you struggle with this piece? Why did you struggle with this section? How did you feel while you were writing this section? What could have helped you while writing this particular section? Let’s review your list of troubleshooting ideas and strategies. What can you add to these?
• Where is an area you took a risk or experimented with something new? Why did you decide to do something different here? Was it successful? Why or why not? If so, how could you incorporate this into other writing? 
• How do you feel about the piece overall? How did you feel about the overall process? How do you see yourself growing as a writer? Are there particular things in your learning environment or mindset that contribute to successful writing? Identify one or two concrete strategies to use moving forward. 

Metacognition is an important step in writing instruction and where the real magic happens in learning. Students do need feedback on specific pieces of writing but should be given the opportunity to think beyond the product. Providing students with opportunities for metacognitive reflection and the opportunity to discuss their thinking strengthens their writing not only in class but for years to come.

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

What is metacognitive reflection the moderating role of metacognition on emotional regulation and reflection.

• 1 Center for Health Professions Education, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, United States
• 2 College of Education and Human Development, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, United States

Introduction: This paper explores the trilateral relationship among metacognition, emotional regulation, and reflection under the integrative framework of metacognitive reflection.

Methods: Data were gathered from undergraduate participants at a large state university on the East Coast ( N = 493). The quantitative data were derived from: the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI), the Self-Reflection and Insight Scale (SR-IS), and the Cognitive Reappraisal Scale (ERQ). Data analysis consisted of structural equation modeling (SEM) in which the associations between latent constructs were tested. Emotional regulation and metacognition were found to be positively and significantly related to the latent construct of reflection.

Results: SEM results indicated that emotional regulation (which emerged as the strongest predictor) together with metacognition predicted 52% of the variance in reflection. Moreover, the latent moderation model showed that metacognition significantly moderated the relationship between emotional regulation and reflection such that emotional regulation was a strong and positive predictor of reflection when students simultaneously showed high levels of metacognition. In contrast, emotional regulation did not significantly predict reflection for students with low levels of metacognition. The alternative model showed that emotional regulation also moderated the relationship between metacognition and reflection such that metacognition contributed to reflection the most when participants simultaneously showed high levels of emotional regulation.

Discussion: These findings suggest the interaction between metacognition and emotional regulation is critical in the gamut of reflection.

1. Introduction

Recently, Schaepkens et al. (2022) argued that “Research on reflection must deal with the paradox that every conceptualization of reflection is either too sharp or too broad” (p. 1). Previously, Kirkham and Diamond (2003) also asserted that “Reflection needs to be better operationalized; its components and the mechanism driving it better understood” (p. 474). The need to reconceptualize the dimensions comprising reflection has been an important point of discussion in the broader literature ( Edwards, 2017 ). The nature of reflection is complex, serving various functions, holding many attributes (i.e., philosophical, abstract, intentional, systematic), and ranging from content-based reflection to metacognitive reflection to intense and transformative levels of reflection ( Grossman, 2009 ; Keestra, 2017 ). Thus, in this structural equation modeling study, we intentionally focus on one aspect of reflection: metacognitive reflection. However, what exactly comprises metacognitive reflection calls for conceptual clarity. In other words, what are the key factors that contribute to this type of reflection?

Recent trends in the literature reveal persistent use of the umbrella term metacognitive reflection when discussing metacognition, reflection, and/or emotion ( Grossman, 2009 ; Gillon et al., 2012 ). In fact, a basic search of PsycInfo, Embase, and PubMed (March, 2022) with the search string: metacognitive reflection*, after deduplication, resulted in 464 hits. The unclear overlap of these related constructs has been pervasively suggested in both clinical and nonclinical populations ( Cacciamani et al., 2012 ; Casakin and Wodehouse, 2021 ). As implied by the term, researchers attempt to capture the naturally close and mutually complementary relationship between metacognition and reflection ( Keestra, 2017 ). However, similar to Glava and Glava (2011) , most researchers informally use the term metacognitive reflection without providing a clear definition. Cornoldi (1998) is among the few researchers who offer an explicit definition: “Metacognitive reflection is not only represented by its most evident, aware, verbalizable portion; it also includes a part not so easy to verbalize that refers to affective characteristics that include: intuitions, sensations, emotions, autobiographical memories, and self-evaluations” (p. 157). Similarly, Grossman (2009) proposed that on the continuum of reflection, metacognitive reflection considers the metacognitive role of feelings and emotions in reflection. As such, some consensus appears to be that an awareness of emotion is at the heart of metacognitive reflection ( Cacciamani et al., 2012 ; Eichbaum, 2014 ; Bonfils et al., 2016 ; Moritz and Lysaker, 2018 ). Following this implication, we propose that the regulation of emotion ( via cognitive reappraisal) deserves consideration in the evaluation of reflection.

The literature in this area provides theoretically diverse perspectives, with some arguing that metacognition exerts influence on or precedes reflection and vice versa; while others focus on the similarity of the constructs and allude to a bidirectional relationship ( Siddiqui et al., 2020 ). A handful of qualitative studies also support the idea that developing or increasing levels of reflective awareness requires enhanced metacognitive monitoring ( McAlpine and Weston, 2000 ; Larrivee, 2008 ; Whittaker and van Garderen, 2009 ; Sellars, 2012 ). By the same token, a significant association has been reported between metacognition and emotional regulation strategies ( Quattrini et al., 2019 ; Pennequin et al., 2020 ).

Although independent lines of research have established the value of cognitive reappraisal (as a dimension of emotional regulation), metacognition, reflection, the interactions between metacognition and reflection ( Lyons and Zelazo, 2011 ), metacognition and emotion ( Efklides, 2006 , 2011 ; Davis et al., 2010 ; Aloi et al., 2022 ), and emotion and reflection ( Crane et al., 2019 ); the specific associations that exist between metacognition, emotional regulation, and reflection remain to be empirically explored. Further, what factors contribute to reflection remain unclear. Given this gap in the literature, the present study sought to propose and test a structural model, which attempts to offer meaningful insights into the role of metacognition and emotional regulation on reflection.

Highlighting the interconnected nature of these constructs, this research attempts to provide a coherent view of the trilateral relationship among emotional regulation, metacognition, and reflection, under the framework of metacognitive reflection. There is not a single universally accepted definition for the terms metacognition , reflection , or metacognitive reflection . However, reflection is considered by many to be a larger and more holistic construct and has been linked to mindfulness, spiritual intelligence, faith, higher-level awareness, transcendence, moral consciousness, transformative learning, self-regulated learning, and reflexivity ( Mezirow, 1994 ; Bleakley, 1999 ; Baumgartner, 2001 ; Cranton, 2002 ; De Nys, 2002 ; Branson, 2007 ; Korthagen and Vasalos, 2009 ; Travis and Shear, 2010 ; Hetzner et al., 2011 ; Smith, 2011 ). To that end, taking into keen consideration the positive relationship between metacognition and emotional regulation ( Pennequin et al., 2020 ), this study seeks to shed light on the interaction between levels of metacognition and emotional regulation on levels of reflection. For instance, we examine if the interrelation between metacognition and emotional regulation contributes to a positive or high level of reflection. Examining the specific relationships among the aforementioned variables will advance the field by not only preventing confusion and the interchangeable use of these constructs, but also potentially by defining boundaries and helping to direct future research on one aspect of reflection (i.e., metacognitive reflection).

2. Literature review

2.1. reflection.

There is no single operational definition of reflection ( Fat’hi and Behzadpour, 2011 ; Schaepkens et al., 2022 ). Despite persistent ambiguity, the general consensus among scholars appears to be that reflection is an ongoing, systematic, disciplined, back-and-forth cognitive activity of observing, questioning, analyzing, and refining thoughts/actions to gain clarity in understanding and achieve productive outcomes ( Dewey, 1933 ; Killion and Todnem, 1991 ; Bright, 1996 ; Cole and Knowles, 2000 ; Osterman and Kottkamp, 2004 ; Fat’hi and Behzadpour, 2011 ; Schaepkens et al., 2022 ). Reflection has been considered higher-level thinking ( Lasley, 1992 ), cognitive risk-taking ( Schon, 1983 ), and disciplined thinking balancing paucity and redundancy ( Dewey, 1933 ). Reflective thinking is a tool for posing thoughtful and significant questions to enhance the quality of decisions ( Schon, 1992 ; Robinson et al., 2001 ).

Deviating from the natural inclination to promote or advocate one’s agenda, reflective thinking through questioning primarily seeks to explore alternative assumptions and perspectives ( Schon, 1992 ; Marquardt and Waddill, 2004 ). Accordingly, Cooper and Larrivee (2006) suggested that reflection is exploration for the purpose of understanding. As a result, one’s intrinsic orientation is transformed from certainty to curiosity. One assumption of reflective thinking is that by operating in a mode of protracted inquiry, one will unearth blind and/or opaque spots in their understandings ( Dewey, 1933 ). Engaging in a cycle of open discovery helps to bring to light the hidden structure of one’s thinking, lying beneath the realm of consciousness. At a minimum, reflection serves as a tool for exposing subconscious or unconscious mental models. As such, Kim (1999) avowed that this process emancipates us from deception. Relatedly, Dewey declared that when a reflective stance is assumed, individuals are aware of limitations, lack of understanding, and partial absences that exist even as they strive to make meaning. Shapiro and Reiff (1993) proposed that once hidden theories are discovered, this revelation forms the basis for considering alternative perspectives.

One of the fundamental assumptions of reflective thinking is that all ideas are subject to questioning, and none are exempt ( Cole and Knowles, 2000 ; Schön, 2017 ). Not only does this mode of thinking encourage the bringing to light of embedded assumptions, but it also requires critically challenging any established (possibly tacit) beliefs. This phenomenon is particularly relevant in what Morgan (2011) referred to as psychic prisons or favored ways of thinking that become traps. Correspondingly, Dewey (1933) stated, “Thought can more easily traverse an unexplored region than it can undo what has been so thoroughly done as to be ingrained in unconscious habit” (p. 121).

2.2. Metacognition

In alignment with work on the quality of thought, Flavell (1979) first operationalized metacognition as a construct through a model of cognitive monitoring with four distinct types of metacognitive processes: metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive experiences, tasks or goals, and strategies or activities. Flavell’s groundbreaking model explored the complex dimensions of metacognition. Metacognition has been broadly defined as “thinking about thinking,” or “cognition about cognition” ( Flavell, 1979 ; Dimmitt and McCormick, 2012 ). Dinsmore et al. (2008) and Schunk (2008) discussed how this intricate construct has contributed to chaos in terminology. Similarly, Veenman et al. (2006) conducted a comprehensive literature review that revealed the prevalent terms used to capture the various dimensions of metacognition. Metacognition (defined only 33% of the time) and self-regulation were consistently used interchangeably or were greatly associated. Efklides (2008) highlights that metacognition is a multifaceted meta-level phenomenon. Similarly, in their theoretical exploration of the pillars of metacognition, Drigas and Mitsea (2020) propose that, “in a state of awareness, we notice sensations, thoughts and feelings in a reflective way and metacognition depends on our ability to monitor, control and adapt our thoughts and emotions, [reflectively] recognizing and discriminating between functional and dysfunctional mental or emotional states facilitate the flexible modification of thought and behavior in the face of novel demands (p. 6).” In this sense, the expansion of metacognitive monitoring also meant enhancing the process of learning and decision-making ( Flavell, 1979 ). The role of metacognition in enhancing learning, behavior, and the quality of decisions has been supported by empirical evidence across diverse disciplines (e.g., Efklides, 2006 ; Concina, 2019 ; Matsumoto-Royo and Ramírez-Montoya, 2019 ; Yanqun, 2019 ).

2.3. Metacognition and reflection

Describing metacognitive reflection as the conscious and deliberate reflective consideration of one’s mental processes, Hargis and Marotta (2011) recorded eight different types of classes (psychology, mathematics, political science, engineering, education, dance, computer science, and business law) using flip cameras, and used the recordings to gain metacognitive insight into learning and teaching processes. Analyses revealed that reflective activity is associated with increased student engagement and metacognition as students reflected on each other’s work. Furthermore, among faculty, this experience was found to bolster further metacognitive-induced reflection about teaching and learning ( Hargis and Marotta, 2011 ).

Similarly, Rimor and Kozminsky (2003) sought to investigate the metacognitive processes of students who reflected on their learning experiences. The authors asked 24 ninth-grade history students to conduct research over a 5-month period on modern Israeli society using various data sources, and to produce a paper based on their investigation. Students’ metacognitive activities included data searching, data sorting inquiries, project writing, construction of computerized databases, and weekly written reflections on these experiences. Rimor and Kozminsky analyzed the students’ reflections using content analysis based on Flavell ’s ( 1979 ) model of metacognition and identified 18 subcategories of personal, task, and strategy insights gained by students. Additionally, different dominating dimensions of metacognition and patterns of reflection were revealed among students. Rimor and Kozminsky (2003) concluded that encouraging students to foster metacognitive abilities increases their engagement in reflection. Corroborating this idea, Lin (2001) proposed the need to nurture a habit of reflection by reconceptualizing metacognition as a natural part of daily activity.

In another study, Granville and Dison (2005) sought to delineate reflection and metacognitive reflection. They found that the quality and level of reflection were heavily influenced by a student’s decision to remain engaged. When asked to reflect generally about courses, participants showed low levels of reflection, whereas when they were given in-depth long-term research projects, they demonstrated rich reflection. Learners moved on a continuum from thinking to task-related reflection, self-reflection, and finally to metacognitive reflection ( Granville and Dison, 2005 ). Similarly, Philip (2006) supported the view that the deliberate act of reflecting on what was learned significantly contributes to making sense of the learning, why it was learned, and how that particular increment of learning was facilitated. This research suggests that the intricate relationship between metacognition and reflection contributes to in-depth learning.

Cacciamani et al. (2012) measured metacognitive reflection by inviting a group of undergraduate students in post-secondary education settings, both online and in the classroom, to engage in a metacognitively reflective activity by answering specific questions concerning their created knowledge and use of strategies. The reflective questions, which authors described as metacognitive by default, were presented at two points—in the middle and at the end of the task. Only one of seven discussion groups participated in the metacognitive discussions. The results indicated that those who were engaged in the metacognitive reflection space made up 56% of those with advanced epistemic agency. Cacciamani et al. (2012) contended that metacognitive reflection enhances knowledge-building activities by orienting individuals to deeply evaluate problems.

In their qualitative study, McAlpine et al. (1999) reported that professors operated at various levels of metacognitive reflection to improve instruction. They interviewed six exemplary university professors and analyzed hours of videotaped classes. Professors consistently attended to and monitored over 74% of student cues and, in response to the cues, modified or changed their methods of instruction by 52% and their content by 43% to improve learning. Professors’ metacognitive reflections revealed that they strategically reflected on and tracked learning goals by reflectively attending to student participation, student understanding, method, and content. Based on the findings, the authors constructed an integrated metacognitive model of reflection ( McAlpine et al., 1999 ).

Similarly, Bormotova (2010) found that entering freshman, when provided with prompts about their reading and writing experiences, responded with both general and metacognitive reflection, noting that “the borderline between metacognitive and general reflection is quite vague” (p. 46). Participants were able to perceive the value of metacognitive reflection for successful learning. This research articulated that metacognitive reflection is a type of expertise that can be developed and nurtured by providing the necessary support for learners ( Bormotova, 2010 ).

2.4. Emotional regulation and reflection

According to theories of emotion, cognitive reappraisal has been delineated as the best emotional regulation strategy for both naturally occurring and situationally induced emotions that impact decision-making ( Panno et al., 2013 ). Cognitive reappraisal is defined as an antecedent emotional regulation strategy that changes the course of potential emotional responses by productively reframing the meaning of an experience ( Heilman et al., 2010 ). Tsai and Lau (2013) also highlight the value of regulating emotions when reflecting upon negative personal experiences. The term appraisal theory is attributed to Lazarus (1966) , who pioneered the notion that the dynamic nature of appraisal obliges reappraisal of one’s schema as new information becomes available. The benefits and pitfalls of emotions as they enter into the cognitive processes have been discussed by many researchers ( Heilman et al., 2010 ; Tsai and Lau, 2013 ). For instance, positivity and negativity bias can occur as a result of heightened emotion ( Petty and Briñol, 2015 ). Previous research has also suggested that emotions shape both the content and depth of thought processing via reappraisal. Through the cognitive reappraisal dimension, emotions serve to broaden action and the decision repertoire ( Cavanaugh et al., 2007 ).

A major premise in the present study is that metacognitive reflection is composed of mental content and processes ( Verplanken et al., 2007 ). In light of this distinction, Verplanken et al. (2007) contended that metacognitive content, which comprises emotions, is distinct from metacognitive processes (i.e., the metacognitive dimension) involved in reflecting upon content. For instance, negative reflection is framed as a dysfunctional mental habit wherein an individual is likely to perseverate over undesirable attributes and maintain a destructive cognitive space that fuels negative emotions. The researchers highlighted that emotional content and habitual metacognitions are ultimately linked to decisions of self-worth. One of the critical arguments of Verplanken et al. (2007) is that habitual cognitive habits and thoughts are exposed through metacognitive reflection.

2.5. Link between metacognition and emotional regulation

Flavell (1979) proposed the idea that metacognitive experiences include an emotional dimension. He contended that these experiences occur before, after, or during a cognitive activity and may be ephemeral or lengthy, simple or intricate. Novel or arduous tasks, weighty situations, and critical decisions that require conscientious pre- and post-evaluations are likely to arouse metacognitively driven quality control ( Flavell, 1979 ). Following this line of work, Efklides (2006) argued that metacognition and emotions play a significant role in the self-regulation of behavior by impacting top-down and bottom-up processes. Metacognitive experiences include the emotions that participants are aware of when task processing ( Efklides, 2006 ). Efklides ’s ( 2011 ) formulation of the Metacognitive Affective Model demonstrated the significant impact of emotions on metacognition; as negative emotions increased, participants reported feelings of difficulty. Likewise, metacognition had a significant impact on affect, influencing causal attributions, achievement emotions, and reflections of self-concept. This evidence provides the basis for the predictive ability of metacognition and emotion as well as the interaction of both on self-regulation, which is a cyclical process governed by reflection ( Efklides, 2006 ; Efklides et al., 2017 ).

Recent research has abandoned the notion that one can assess the self and situations with complete indifference, as cognition and emotion are interdependent ( Storbeck and Clore, 2007 ). In view of this perspective, metacognition and emotion occur in unison to chronically direct reflection inward in order to inspect and examine the self attentively ( Trapnell and Campbell, 1999 ; Fisher, 2018 ). Eichbaum (2014) contended that metacognition is a complex interplay of cognition and emotion. Due largely to the impulsive and unstable nature of emotions, healthy emotional reappraisal necessitates metacognition structures that are reflectively charged ( Kruger and Dunning, 1999 ; Steinberg, 2007 ). However, because of the high level of cognitive effort required, engagement in metacognitive reflection is often abandoned. For this reason, the quality of metacognitive reflection is often superficial, self-absorbed, and not viewed as a priority ( Dearnley and Matthew, 2007 ).

Exploring the relationship between metacognition and emotion, Tajrishi et al. (2011) conducted a correlational study with 300 university students. The results showed that four out of the five dimensions of metacognition had significant positive correlations with negative emotions. Similarly, Spada et al. (2008) used survey research methods to explore the relationship among metacognition, perceived stress, and emotion in 420 participants. Results revealed that metacognition positively and significantly correlated with negative emotion and stress. In addition, metacognition moderated the relationship between negative emotion and perceptions of stress. The authors suggested that individual differences in metacognition are relevant to understanding the link between negative emotion and perceptions of stress. This line of thought suggests that the moderating impact of metacognition on emotion and negative reflections is worthy of consideration.

Individuals who engage in metacognitive reflection have the capacity to pause and think, which bolsters their ability to effectively regulate their emotions and shift to seek understanding of holistic alternatives. Such individuals demonstrate thoughtful reflection that allows them to expand their thinking in light of new evidence ( Stahl and Pry, 2005 ; Efklides, 2011 ). Further, Drigas and Mitsea ’s ( 2020 ) expand upon metacognitive attention and observation “as a prerequisite for emotional regulation and emotional awareness. Specifically, it means improvement of the emotional regulation processes since we learn pay attention to emotional responses, filtering emotional states and taking into consideration all possible aspects of emotional experience. Highly [reflective] individuals are said to be “in tune” with their emotions and capable of regulating them” (p. 8). Thus, it’s predicted that metacognition and emotional regulation ( via cognitive reappraisal) are likely to interact and work in relation to each other as important constructs in the gamut of reflection.

2.6. The present study

Reconciling various lines of research and extending previous work by Efklides (2006) and Verplanken et al. (2007) , the present study investigates what metacognitive reflection looks like in relation to emotional regulation and metacognition under the psychological structure of reflection; thereby exploring the specific associations among metacognition, reflection, and emotional regulation. The first objective of this study is to measure the extent to which metacognition and emotional regulation predict reflection. A second objective of this study is to explore the interaction effects between levels of metacognition and emotional regulation on levels of reflection. To our knowledge, this is the first research study that attempts to provide a coherent view of the trilateral relationship, employing the metacognitive reflection framework, among emotional regulation ( via cognitive reappraisal), metacognition, and reflection by examining specific associations.

Although each of these constructs have been extensively studied either independently or in some combination, it is not understood how metacognition interrelates with emotional regulation to predict reflection. Examining the latent interaction and directional associations among the aforementioned variables will advance the field by potentially defining boundaries and offering greater conceptual clarity to direct future research. Specifically, exploring the latent interaction is crucial for understanding the role metacognition plays in the association between emotional regulation and reflection, and vice versa. The moderating role of metacognition may be of particular importance here too, as it was found to moderate the relationship between emotional awareness and reflectivity of self-esteem ( Bonfils et al., 2018 ), and between negative emotions and global reflections of stress ( Spada et al., 2008 ). In fact, Bonfils et al. (2018) state that metacognitive self-reflectivity allows an individual to reappraise an experience and helps them to modify emotional distress. Finally, Quattrini et al. (2019) found that the capacity to regulate and manage emotions increases with the increasing of metacognition; thus, taking it one step further, we propose this relationship is strictly connected to reflection. Taken together, this study rigorously explores: (1) How are metacognition and emotional regulation associated with reflection? and (2) Does metacognition moderate the relationship between emotional regulation and reflection? We expected to see that metacognition has a direct, positive effect on reflection (H1), and that emotional regulation ( via cognitive reappraisal) has a direct, positive effect on reflection (H2). We also expected to see that metacognition interacts with emotional regulation to predict high levels of reflection (H3).

3. Materials and methods

3.1. participants.

The 493 undergraduate participants in the present study represented freshmen (30%), sophomores (22%), juniors (25%), and seniors (18%). Most were 18 to 24 years old (84%), white (73%), and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors (66%). There were more women (63%) than men (37%). Participants were asked to indicate if they engaged in specific types of cognitive, metacognitive, or reflective activity. Responses showed that 2.7% engaged in prayer/mediation; 4.7%, to do lists; 2.5%, group discussions; 1.4%, notes/voice notes; 1%, journaling; 0.8%, walking; and 4.1%, exercising. Further, 42.9% engaged in at least two of these methods, and 39.8% engaged in at least three. As shown in Table 1 , 87.8% engaged in these activities at least once a week, and the majority considered the activities to be of great value.

Table 1. Participant demographic and reflection characteristics.

3.2. Measures

Three instruments with validity evidence were used to collect data on the main constructs. In addition, demographic questions were asked as well as questions related to students’ levels of engagement in reflection.

3.2.1. Metacognitive awareness inventory

Developed by Schraw and Dennison (1994) , this 52-item questionnaire has excellent psychometric properties, with internal consistency ranging from 0.88 to 0.93. The items consist of a 5-point scale ranging from “always true” to “always false.” Examples of items include “I consciously focus my attention on important information,” and “I find myself pausing regularly to check my comprehension.” This instrument serves to identify individuals with high metacognitive aptitude. The Cronbach’s alpha for this sample was 0.90.

3.2.2. Emotional regulation questionnaire

To measure the emotional regulation dimension of thought reappraisal, the Cognitive Reappraisal subscale of the Emotional Regulation Questionnaire was used ( Gross and John, 2003 ). The subscale has six items on a 7-point Likert scale (from 1, “strongly disagree,” to 7, “strongly agree”); sample items include “When I want to feel less negative emotion, I change the way I’m thinking about the situation,” and “I control my emotions by changing the way I think about the situation I’m in.” This questionnaire possesses good psychometric properties ( Gross and John, 2003 ). The Cronbach’s alpha for the sample of the present study was 0.94.

3.2.3. Self-reflection and insight scale

This 20-item scale was used to measure participants’ propensity to engage in reflection ( Grant et al., 2002 ). Items included both positive (engagement) statements and negative (lack of engagement) statements, such as “I am very interested in examining what I think about,” “I don’t often think about my thoughts,” “I am usually aware of my thoughts,” and “I don’t really think about why I behave in the way that I do.” Participants responded to items using a 5-point Likert scale, from 1, “strongly disagree,” to 5, “strongly agree.” The Cronbach’s alpha for this sample was 0.83.

3.3. Procedures

The study was approved by the university’s institutional review board. Overall, the large state university website reported having 30,000 undergraduate degree seeking students and 11 colleges. Emails were sent out to faculty and colleagues across colleges, soliciting participation to various department list serves with a survey link. No selection criteria were imposed. Relying on convenient sampling, survey emails were distributed to approximately 1,100 undergraduate students in the college of humanities, social sciences, education, and human development with 493 returned, a response rate of 45%. A power analysis indicated that a sample size of at least 400 participants would be sufficient to detect significant effects with a power of 0.90 for the detection of a moderate or large effect size according to Cohen (1977) . The alpha level used for this analysis was p < 0.05. Thus, in accordance with statistical guidelines, this sample size was deemed appropriate given the number of variables, significant alpha < 0.05, and a statistical power exceeding the recommended 0.80 ( Fitzner and Heckinger, 2010 ).

3.4. Data analysis

We first performed data screening for skewness and kurtosis and computed descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, correlations) of all variables. Following that, we estimated in Mplus 8.0 a measurement model of the key constructs included in this study ( Figure 1 ). This model included latent emotional regulation, metacognition, and reflection. In this model, (a) latent metacognition was indicated by four composites of procedural knowledge: comprehension monitoring, information management strategies, and debugging strategies, (b) latent emotional regulation was indicated by six raw items, and (c) latent reflection was indicated by three subscale composites of engagement in reflection, need for reflection, and insight. Due to the large number of raw items in the constructs of metacognition (26 items) and reflection (20 items), we used the composite subscale scores suggested by the literature for estimating the baseline model as well as all subsequent models. The model fit was evaluated according to Hu and Bentler ’s ( 1998 ) criteria which included the chi-square statistics, comparative fit index (CFI), the root means square residual error of approximation (RMSEA), and the Standardized Root Mean Square (SRMR). A CFI value of ≥ 0.95, RMSEA value of ≤ 0.06, and SRMR value of ≤ 0.08 would indicate a good fit ( Hu and Bentler, 1998 ). Hu and Bentler (1998) recommended that researchers should combine SRMR with another fit index (e.g., CFI or RMSEA) for indication of model fit. We then added structural paths to the measurement model to test if emotional regulation and metacognition predicted reflection ( Figure 2 , top panel). Gender, age, ethnicity, year in college, major, and GPA were included as covariates.

Figure 1. Measurement model of the key constructs. Unstandardized coefficients are presented.

Figure 2. Structural model of metacognition, emotion regulation, and reflection. (Top panel) represents the baseline model that estimates the main effects of metacognition and emotion regulation on reflection. (Bottom panel) represents the model that estimate the latent interaction between metacognition and emotion regulation on reflection. The black filled circle represents the interaction (see Muthén and Muthén, 2017 , p. 84). Covariates included gender, age, GPA, college year, ethnicity, and majors.

To examine whether or not metacognition moderates the effect of emotional regulation on reflection, we specified a latent interaction model with the latent moderated structural equations (LMS) method ( Klein and Moosbrugger, 2000 ; Sardeshmukh and Vandenberg, 2017 ). Given that the latent interaction models were specified within the LMS framework ( Klein and Moosbrugger, 2000 ; Maslowsky et al., 2015 ), conventional SEM fit indices (e.g., CFI, RMSEA, SRMR) are not available. Thus, the model that included CFA and structural paths served as the baseline model. Upon the establishment of a well-fitted baseline model, the moderating effects of coping strategies were examined by estimating the interaction term between emotional regulation and metacognition ( Figure 2 , bottom panel). Significant interaction terms were interpreted by plotting the simple slopes based on high (1 SD above mean) and low (1 SD below mean) levels of a predictor and moderator ( Aiken et al., 1991 ).

4.1. Preliminary analyses

Descriptive statistics for all variables are presented in Table 1 . All variables had less than 5% missing data and the skewness and kurtosis were below two, indicating that the data were normally distributed. The missing percentage for each variable was reported in Table 1 . We conducted Little’s Missing Completely at Random (MCAR) test and missing completely at random assumption was met, χ 2 (3,729) = 3126.76; p = 1.00. Thus, Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) estimation was used to handle missing data in subsequent SEM estimations. As shown in Table 2 , all correlations among metacognition, reflection, and emotional regulation scales were statistically significant. The strongest relationship emerged between emotional regulation and reflection, r (493) = 0.54, p < 0.01. Metacognition and reflection were weakly related, r (493) = 0.25, p < 0.01, as were emotional regulation and metacognition, r (493) = 0.12, p < 0.01.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for study variables.

4.2. Measurement model

We first estimated the measurement model as depicted in Figure 1 . The model fit for the baseline unconditional model where no indicators were set to be correlated was acceptable, with χ 2 (62) = 4609.88, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.963, RMSEA = 0.074 [90% CI = 0.064 to 0.085], SRMR = 0.041. Model fit indices suggest correlations between two pairs of items under the latent construct of emotional regulation. We evaluated the item contents and determined the two correlations between items made practical sense (e.g., the wordings are almost identical across the two items except for one wording: “ When I want to feel more positive emotion, I change the way I’m thinking about the situation.” “ When I want to feel more negative emotion, I change the way I’m thinking about the situation. ”). After the within-construct items were allowed to be correlated, the model fit greatly improved and fit the data well, χ 2 (59) = 147.429, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.980, RMSEA = 0.055 [90% CI = 0.044 to 0.067], SRMR = 0.04. All factor loadings were significant at the p < 0.001 level.

4.3. Structural model

Next, we added the structural paths to the baseline model between the three latent constructs to estimate the latent correlations between emotional regulation, metacognition, and reflection ( Figure 2 , top panel). The structural model fit the data well, χ 2 (59) = 147.429, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.980, RMSEA = 0.055 [90% CI = 0.044 to 0.067], SRMR = 0.04. Then, we estimated the same model in which gender, ethnicity, age, year in college, major, and GPA were controlled as covariates (conditional model). The conditional model fit the data well, χ 2 (159) = 349.71, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.960, RMSEA = 0.049 [90% CI = 0.042 to 0.056], SRMR = 0.04. The latent construct of reflection was significantly predicted by both the latent construct of metacognition ( b = 0.24, SE = 0.05, p < 0.001), and the latent construct of emotional regulation ( b = 0.20, SE = 0.02, p < 0.001). A significant correlation was found between metacognition and emotional regulation ( r = 0.12, p = 0.004). This model explained 46% of the total variance in reflection. Unstandardized path coefficients of this model are provided in Table 3 .

Table 3. Unstandardized path coefficients (and standard errors) of the latent interaction model predicting reflection.

4.4. Moderation of metacognition

The LMS approach was adopted to examine the interaction effects of emotional regulation and metacognition on reflection ( Maslowsky et al., 2015 ). Given that the baseline structural model fit the data well (fit indices mentioned above), we proceeded with a model that included the interaction term between emotional regulation and metacognition ( Figure 2 , bottom panel). Unstandardized path coefficients and total R 2 s for each model are presented in Table 3 . In the latent moderation model, reflection was significantly predicted by metacognition ( b = 0.22, SE = 0.04, Standardized β = 0.34, p < 0.001), emotional regulation ( b = 0.24, SE = 0.02, Standardized β = 0.37 vs. 0.34 p < 0.001), and the interaction between the two constructs ( b = 0.22, SE = 0.03, Standardized β = 0.33, p < 0.001). Together, this model explained 52% of the total variance in reflection. Results showed a significant interaction between emotional regulation and metacognition. As depicted in Figure 3A , simple slopes revealed that prediction of emotional regulation to reflection was the strongest for students with the highest levels of metacognition ( b = 0.52, SE = 0.05, p < 0.001), followed by weaker associations for students with moderate levels of metacognition ( b = 0.25, SE = 0.03, p < 0.001), in contrast to students with the lowest levels of metacognition ( b = −0.03, SE = 0.04, p = 0.37). An alternative presentation of this interaction effect is also shown in Figure 3B . Simple slopes revealed that the association between metacognition and reflection was the strongest for students with a high level of emotional regulation ( b = 0.57, SE = 0.04, p < 0.001), followed by weaker associations for students with a moderate level of emotional regulation ( b = 0.28, SE = 0.03, p < 0.001), in contrast to students with a low level of emotional regulation ( b = −0.001, SE = 0.04, p = 0.97).

Figure 3. The interaction between metacognition and emotional regulation on reflection. Panel (A) shows the moderation role of metacognition and panel (B) shows the moderation role emotional regulation.

5. Discussion

The results of this study revealed several things about a proposed trilateral relationship among emotional regulation, reflection, and metacognition. Our findings supported the idea that both metacognition and emotional regulation significantly contribute to reflection. Of greatest significance, metacognition moderates the relationship between emotional regulation and reflection. The interactions also reveal that the path from emotional regulation to reflection is strongest for participants with higher levels of metacognition. Finally, 52% of the variance in reflection was explained by emotional regulation, metacognition, and the interaction between the two. Of the two, emotional regulation via cognitive reappraisal emerged as the strongest predictor of reflection. The patterns observed in this study can be interpreted at multiple levels.

First, this study demonstrates that the presence of both metacognition and emotional regulation play a critical role in enhancing reflection. As anticipated, moderation results confirmed that high levels of metacognition and emotional regulation predicted higher reflective engagement. The association between emotional regulation and reflection was the strongest when students simultaneously showed a high level of metacognition. In contrast, the same link was not significant for students with low a level of metacognition. Thus, the role of metacognition is more profound when individuals reflectively engage in higher levels of emotional regulation. The alternative model showed that emotional regulation also moderated the relationship between metacognition and reflection such that metacognition contributed to reflection the most when participants simultaneously showed high levels of emotional regulation. This finding is in line with the integrative theories of metacognitive reflection, where individuals reflectively monitor thoughts and regulate emotions in order to achieve meaningful insight into the self, others, and larger complex contexts ( Moritz and Lysaker, 2018 ; Kolavarambath et al., 2020 ; Lysaker et al., 2020 ). This points to the possibility that cognition about cognition and reappraisal of cognition are mutually beneficial and synergistic mechanisms that successfully maximize reflection. Overall, these findings suggest that the interaction between metacognition and emotional regulation is critical in the gamut of reflection.

Interestingly, metacognition may be conceived as a catalyst that serves as a gateway for engagement in emotional regulation and overall reflection. This is in accordance with Zimmerman ’s ( 2002 ) model of self-regulatory processes, where the self-monitoring dimension of metacognition comes before the self-reflection phase. As such, metacognition is perhaps best conceptualized as a fundamental construct that has important ramifications for engagement in reflection rather than being conflated with reflection. Such an understanding extends our orientation of the interconnected components of metacognition and moves the field forward ( Veenman et al., 2006 ). The results of this study support the need to pay attention to the diverse metacognitive and emotional regulation layers at work in reflection. While there is no compelling need to create a new definition, it is critical to clearly define and delineate the construct of metacognitive reflection and acknowledge the overlap of these inherently related constructs (i.e., metacognition and emotional regulation) that contribute to form the trilateral dimension of one type of reflection, perhaps best conceptualized as metacognitive reflection.

Second, the findings of this study suggest that emotional regulation, emerging as a strongest predictor, might be partly metacognitive and largely reflective. This is particularly interesting as the reappraisal dimension, going beyond the metacognitive, transforms into reframing and reinterpreting one’s schema in a manner that is inherently reflective. Cognitive neuroscience studies by Füstös et al. (2013) employing electroencephalography found that an individual’s ability to successfully regulate emotion requires interoceptive awareness. The researchers provided neuroanatomical evidence that sensitivity to one’s internal emotional state and the reciprocal interaction among mind, cognition, and affect is an important criterion for emotional regulation. This perspective pertains to a higher-level reflective awareness of the cognitive, emotional, and physiological components mediating emotional experiences ( Damasio, 1996 ; Füstös et al., 2013 ). This interpretation is further supported by Herbert et al. (2011) , who empirically verified that interoceptive awareness depicts heightened consciousness of emotional experiences and overall internal visceral processes and is negatively linked to alexithymia (generally characterized by externally oriented thinking that is oblivious to emotions and emotional stimuli). Perhaps, emotional regulation via cognitive reappraisal is governed by internally oriented thinking that is inherently reflective.

Finally, our findings suggest that metacognition and emotional regulation do not work alongside each other or as separate entities. Rather, they work in relation to each other to predict high levels of reflection. We note the importance of the interrelation between metacognition and emotional regulation. Without a high level of metacognition, it is less likely that a strong emotional regulation will contribute to high levels of reflection process. Likewise, without a strong emotional regulation, it is less likely that metacognition will contribute to reflection.

This study finds strong support for the predictive links among metacognition, emotional regulation, and reflection. It can be expected that metacognition and emotional regulation play an essential role in engagement in reflection. This is in accordance with Hudlicka ’s ( 2005 ) study that models the interaction between metacognition and emotion. The metacognition, emotional regulation, and reflection systems are related in such a convoluted manner that none can be neglected in the discussion of the metaprocesses governing the spectrum of reflection. The findings of this study illustrate the value of this triarchic framework in an undergraduate student population. More specifically, Gutierrez de Blume and Montoya (2021) state that students reported higher metacognitive scores across the social sciences including education and psychology where reflection is promoted in abundance Metacognitive reflection is, in essence, the space of cognitive integration where metacognition, emotional regulation, and reflection become structurally integrated ( Veenman et al., 2006 ; Gutierrez de Blume and Montoya, 2021 ). This part of the relationship is largely abstract and conceptual. Nonetheless, the constructs forming metacognitive reflection are clearly interdependent.

5.1. Theoretical implications

Building on previous work (e.g., Verplanken et al., 2007 ; Efklides, 2008 ) this study aims to move the discussion forward by highlighting the interaction between metacognition and emotional regulation within the broader context of reflection. Additionally, based on prior theory and research, as well as the findings of this study, perhaps when individuals cross the threshold from more superficial to deeper levels of cognition—metacognition—to reflection, we come into a space where we can begin to effectively regulate our emotions, allowing us to engage in deeper levels of reflection where awareness and novel insight emerge ( El-Dib, 2007 ; Carroll, 2010a , b ). Metacognitive reflection can be conceived as a whole-person perspective that intentionally considers both metacognitive and emotional structures in the gamut of reflection. An important consequence of the trilateral dimension of metacognitive reflection could potentially be a reflective space where regulation of emotion leads to a shift in perspective ( Arnon-Ribenfeld et al., 2018 )—a space that promotes internal work, starting from the basic content-based to more in-depth and intensive metacognitive levels, reflectively suspending preconceived notions and recognizing the need for authentic regulation of emotion ( Grossman, 2009 ; Davis et al., 2010 ).

5.2. Limitations and future directions

Overall, while this work has begun to disentangle the trilateral relationship between emotional regulation, metacognition, and reflection, it is not without limitations. Although the current model has explained 52% of the variance in reflection, there is still 48% of the variance that remain unexplained. This was expected as a number of key variables well established in the cognitive and affect literature (e.g., self-regulation, motivation) were not included in the present study. Further, while the current study focused on these trilateral process variables, additional research to explore the complexity of metacognitive reflection is needed using participants at different stages of their development. It should be noted that the framework offered in this study focuses predominantly on undergraduate students in the social sciences, which limits the external validity of the findings.

This article fills a gap in the literature by beginning to examine characteristics of the trilateral relationship among emotional regulation, metacognition, and reflection. What may not be as clear is how metacognitive or emotional regulation processes carry over to impact engagement in reflection. As such, it would be a fruitful endeavor for research to examine this trilateral relationship in relation to cognitive load levels (e.g., high, mid, and low), types of emotions, self-regulation, with various age groups/periods of development, and to employ mixed-methods strategies to understand how participants experience this phenomenon. This could potentially be attributed to freeing working memory capacity and reducing cognitive load ( Young et al., 2014 ). Further, considering the trilateral nature of emotional regulation, metacognition, and reflection, establishing initiatives to improve only one of these variables is an incomplete strategy.

Moreover, there is a need to explicitly and thoughtfully assess the intermingled nature of emotive, metacognitive, and reflection dimensions by employing an integrative review of the literature. To fully exploit the potential of metacognitive reflection calls for efforts such as reviewing the plethora of literature in these distinct fields, constructing interviews relying on maximum-variation sampling to gather data from a heterogeneous sample, using a mixed-methods approach, creating an interdisciplinary research team, collecting substantial data, and the like. Future reviews focused on reflection and emotion could embark on this complex and uncharted territory of metacognitive reflection.

6. Conclusion

This article is a first attempt to integrate the metaprocesses that govern reflection by empirically incorporating metacognition and emotional regulation via cognitive reappraisal. Oh (1999) lucidly stated, “One way to refine a theory is to consider new variables, within the established framework, that are potentially powerful in explaining as well as predicting individual behavior” (p. 68). Similarly, Forestier et al. (2021) highlighted that accurately accounting for the dynamic and multicomponent nature of a psychological phenomenon necessitates a more integrative theoretical approach. Metacognitive reflection allows for the amalgamation of these variables into a unified framework by highlighting the trilateral nature of one type of reflection: metacognitive reflection . This study brings to the forefront the notion of reflectively reappraising one’s cognitions in relation to metacognition, as well as the conceptual and synergistic interrelation among the constructs, in the hope of presenting a more coherent view of the mechanisms comprising metacognitive reflection.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting by the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by George Mason University IRB. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

JM full development of narrative and manuscript. AK refining narrative and methods. SD contributed to the narrative and discussion refinement. TM took lead on conducting SEM. All authors contributed to the development and refinement of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Author disclaimer

The views expressed in this manuscript are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, the Henry M. Jackson Foundation, or the United States Department of Defense.

Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., and Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. New York, NY: Sage.

Google Scholar

Aloi, M., Riccelli, C., Piterà, F., Notaro, M., Curcio, V., Pullia, L., et al. (2022). Impaired metacognitive differentiation, high difficulty in controlling impulses and non-acceptance of emotions are associated with the severity of gambling disorder. J. Gambl. Stud. 39, 1–11. doi: 10.1007/s10899-021-10099-y

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Arnon-Ribenfeld, N., Bloom, R., Atzil-Slonim, D., Peri, T., de Jong, S., and Hasson-Ohayon, I. (2018). Metacognitive reflection and insight therapy (MERIT) among people with schizophrenia: Lessons from two case studies. Am. J. Psychother. 71, 175–185. doi: 10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.20180037

Baumgartner, L. M. (2001). An update on transformational learning. New Direct. Adult Continu Educ. 2001, 15–24. doi: 10.1002/ace.4

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bleakley, A. (1999). From reflective practice to holistic reflexivity. Stud. High. Educ. 24, 315–330. doi: 10.1080/03075079912331379925

Bonfils, K. A., Luther, L., George, S., Buck, K. D., and Lysaker, P. H. (2016). The role of metacognitive self-reflectivity in emotional awareness and subjective indices of recovery in schizophrenia. J. Nervous Ment. Dis. 204:903. doi: 10.1097/NMD.0000000000000599

Bonfils, K. A., Minor, K. S., Leonhardt, B. L., and Lysaker, P. H. (2018). Metacognitive self-reflectivity moderates the relationship between distress tolerance and empathy in schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res . 265, 1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2018.04.042

Bormotova, I. S. (2010). A qualitative study of metacognitive reflection: The beliefs, attitudes and reflective practices of developing professional educators. Ph.D. thesis. Indiana, PA: Indiana University of Pennsylvania.

Branson, C. M. (2007). Improving leadership by nurturing moral consciousness through structured self-reflection. J. Educ. Adm. 45, 471–493. doi: 10.1108/09578230710762463

Bright, B. (1996). Reflecting on ‘reflective practice’. Stud. Educ. Adults 28, 162–184. doi: 10.1080/02660830.1996.11730638

Cacciamani, S., Cesareni, D., Martini, F., Ferrini, T., and Fujita, N. (2012). Influence of participation, facilitator styles, and metacognitive reflection on knowledge building in online university courses. Comput. Educ. 58, 874–884. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.019

Carroll, M. (2010a). Levels of reflection: On learning reflection. Psychother. Aust. 16:24.

Carroll, M. (2010b). Supervision: Critical reflection for transformational learning (Part 2). Clin. Superv. 29, 1–19. doi: 10.1080/07325221003730301

Casakin, H., and Wodehouse, A. (2021). A systematic review of design creativity in the architectural design studio. Buildings 11:31. doi: 10.3390/buildings11010031

Cavanaugh, L. A., Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., and Payne, J. W. (2007). Appraising the appraisal-tendency framework. J. Consum. Psychol. 17, 169–173. doi: 10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70024-4

Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Cole, A. L., and Knowles, J. G. (2000). Researching teaching: Exploring teacher development through reflexive inquiry. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Concina, E. (2019). The role of metacognitive skills in music learning and performing: Theoretical features and educational implications. Front. Psychol. 10:1583. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01583

Cooper, J. M., and Larrivee, B. (2006). An educator’s guide to teacher reflection . Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1–19.

Cornoldi, C. (1998). “The impact of metacognitive reflection on cognitive control,” in Metacognition and cognitive neuropsychology: Monitoring and control processes , eds G. Mazzoni and T. O. Nelson (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum), 139–159.

Crane, M. F., Boga, D., Karin, E., Gucciardi, D. F., Rapport, F., Callen, J., et al. (2019). Strengthening resilience in military officer cadets: A group-randomized controlled trial of coping and emotion regulatory self-reflection training. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 87, 125–140. doi: 10.1037/ccp0000356

Cranton, P. (2002). Teaching for transformation. New Direct Adult Continu. Educ. 2002, 63–72. doi: 10.1002/ace.50

Damasio, A. R. (1996). The somatic marker hypothesis and the possible functions of the prefrontal cortex. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 351, 1413–1420. doi: 10.1098/rstb.1996.0125

Davis, E. L., Levine, L. J., Lench, H. C., and Quas, J. A. (2010). Metacognitive emotion regulation: Children’s awareness that changing thoughts and goals can alleviate negative emotions. Emotion 10, 498–510. doi: 10.1037/a0018428

De Nys, M. J. (2002). Faith, self-transcendence, and reflection. Int. J. Philos. Relig. 51, 121–138. doi: 10.1023/A:1014420229544

Dearnley, C., and Matthew, B. (2007). Factors that contribute to undergraduate student success. Teach. High. Educ. 12, 377–391. doi: 10.1080/13562510701278740

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston, MA: D.C. Heath.

Dimmitt, C., and McCormick, C. B. (2012). “Metacognition in education,” in APA educational psychology handbook: Vol. 1. Theories, constructs, and critical issues , eds K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, and J. Sweller (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association), 157–187. doi: 10.1037/13273-007

Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., and Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 20, 391–409. doi: 10.1007/s10648-008-9083-6

Drigas, A., and Mitsea, E. (2020). The 8 pillars of metacognition. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 15, 162–178. doi: 10.3991/ijet.v15i21.14907

Edwards, S. (2017). Reflecting differently. New dimensions: Reflection-before-action and reflection-beyond-action. Int. Pract. Dev. J. 7, 1–14. doi: 10.19043/ipdj.71.002

Efklides, A. (2006). Metacognition and affect: What can metacognitive experiences tell us about the learning process? Educ. Res. Rev. 1, 3–14. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2005.11.001

Efklides, A. (2008). Metacognition: Defining its facets and levels of functioning in relation to self-regulation and co-regulation. Eur. Psychol. 13, 277–287. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040.13.4.277

Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: The MASRL model. Educ. Psychol. 46, 6–25. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2011.538645

Efklides, A., Schwartz, B. L., and Brown, V. (2017). “Motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: Does metacognition play a role?,” in Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance , eds D. H. Schunk and J. A. Greene (Milton Park: Routledge), 64–82. doi: 10.4324/9781315697048-5

Eichbaum, Q. G. (2014). Thinking about thinking and emotion: The metacognitive approach to the medical humanities that integrates the humanities with the basic and clinical sciences. Perm. J. 18, 64–75. doi: 10.7812/TPP/14-027

El-Dib, M. A. B. (2007). Levels of reflection in action research. An overview and an assessment tool. Teach. Teach. Educ. 23, 24–35. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.002

Fat’hi, J., and Behzadpour, F. (2011). Beyond method: The rise of reflective teaching. Int. J. Engl. Linguist. 1:241. doi: 10.5539/ijel.v1n2p241

Fisher, L. (2018). “Emotion recollected in tranquillity”: blogging for metacognition in language teacher education,” in Metacognition in language learning and teaching , eds Å. Bjørke, C. Haukås, and M. Dypedahl (Milton Park: Routledge), 224–242. doi: 10.4324/9781351049146-12

Fitzner, K., and Heckinger, E. (2010). Sample size calculation and power analysis: A quick review. Diabetes Educ. 36, 701–707. doi: 10.1177/0145721710380791

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. Am. Psychol. 34, 906–911. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906

Forestier, C., de Chanaleilles, M., Boisgontier, M. P., and Chalabaev, A. (2021). Ego depletion: A review of criticisms along with new perspectives for the replicable investigation of self-control fatigue as a multicomponent phenomenon. PsyArXiv [Preprint]. doi: 10.31234/osf.io/spm9a

Füstös, J., Gramann, K., Herbert, B. M., and Pollatos, O. (2013). On the embodiment of emotion regulation: Interoceptive awareness facilitates reappraisal. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 8, 911–917. doi: 10.1093/scan/nss089

Gillon, S., Radford, S., Chalwin, R., Devita, M., Endacott, R., and Jones, D. (2012). Crisis resource management, simulation training and the medical emergency team. Crit. Care Resuscit. 14, 227–235.

Glava, C. C., and Glava, A. E. (2011). Development of metacognitive behavior of future teacher students through electronic learning diaries as means of self-reflection. Proc. Comput. Sci. 3, 649–653. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2010.12.108

Grant, A. M., Franklin, J., and Langford, P. (2002). The self-reflection and insight scale: A new measure of private self-consciousness. Soc. Behav. Person. 30, 821–835. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2002.30.8.821

Granville, S., and Dison, L. (2005). Thinking about thinking: Integrating self-reflection into an academic literacy course. J. Engl. Acad. Purp. 4, 99–118. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2004.07.009

Gross, J. J., and John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 85, 348–362. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348

Grossman, R. (2009). Structures for facilitating student reflection. Coll. Teach. 57, 15–22. doi: 10.3200/CTCH.57.1.15-22

Gutierrez de Blume, A. P., and Montoya, D. M. (2021). Differences in metacognitive skills among undergraduate students in education, psychology, and medicine. Rev. Colomb. de Psicol. 30, 111–130. doi: 10.15446/rcp.v30n1.88146

Hargis, J., and Marotta, S. M. (2011). Using flip camcorders for active classroom metacognitive reflection. Act. Learn. High. Educ. 12, 35–44. doi: 10.1177/1469787410387816

Heilman, R. M., Crişan, L. G., Houser, D., Miclea, M., and Miu, A. C. (2010). Emotion regulation and decision making under risk and uncertainty. Emotion 10, 257–265. doi: 10.1037/a0018489

Herbert, B. M., Herbert, C., and Pollatos, O. (2011). On the relationship between interoceptive awareness and alexithymia: Is interoceptive awareness related to emotional awareness? J. Person. 79, 1149–1175. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00717.x

Hetzner, S., Steiner, C. M., Dimitrova, V., Brna, P., and Conlan, O. (2011). “Adult self-regulated learning through linking experience in simulated and real world: A holistic approach,” in Towards Ubiquitous Learning. EC-TEL 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science , eds C. D. Kloos, D. Gillet, R. M. Crespo García, F. Wild, and M. Wolpers (Berlin: Springer), 166–180. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-23985-4_14

Hu, L. T., and Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychol. Methods 3:424. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424

Hudlicka, E. (2005). “Modeling interaction between metacognition and emotion in a cognitive architecture,” in Metacognition in Computation. AAAI Spring Symposium, TR SS-05–04 , (Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press).

Keestra, M. (2017). Metacognition and reflection by interdisciplinary experts: Insights from cognitive science and philosophy. Issues Interdiscip. Stud. 35, 121–169.

Killion, J. P., and Todnem, G. R. (1991). A process for personal theory building. Educ. Leadersh. 48, 14–16.

Kim, H. S. (1999). Critical reflective inquiry for knowledge development in nursing practice. J. Adv. Nurs. 29, 1205–1212. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1999.01005.x

Kirkham, N. Z., and Diamond, A. (2003). Sorting between theories of perseveration: Performance in conflict tasks requires memory, attention and inhibition. Dev. Sci. 6, 474–476. doi: 10.1111/1467-7687.00303

Klein, A., and Moosbrugger, H. (2000). Maximum likelihood estimation of latent interaction effects with the LMS method. Psychometrika 65, 457–474. doi: 10.1007/BF02296338

Kolavarambath, R., Sudhir, P. M., Prathyusha, P. V., and Thirthalli, J. (2020). Emotion recognition, emotion awareness, metacognition, and social functioning in persons with schizophrenia. Indian J. Psychol. Med. 42, 147–154. doi: 10.4103/IJPSYM.IJPSYM_149_19

Korthagen, F., and Vasalos, A. (2009). “From reflection to presence and mindfulness: 30 years of developments concerning the concept of reflection in teacher education,” in Paper presented at the biannual conference of European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction , (Amsterdam).

Kruger, J., and Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 77, 1121–1134. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121

Larrivee, B. (2008). Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice. Reflect. Pract. 9, 341–360. doi: 10.1080/14623940802207451

Lasley, T. J. (1992). Promoting teacher reflection. J. Staff Dev. 13, 24–29. doi: 10.1080/13664530000200107

Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Lin, X. (2001). Designing metacognitive activities. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev . 49, 23–40. doi: 10.1007/BF02504926

Lyons, K. E., and Zelazo, P. D. (2011). Monitoring, metacognition, and executive function: Elucidating the role of self-reflection in the development of self-regulation. Adv. Child Dev. Behav. 40, 379–412. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-386491-8.00010-4

Lysaker, P. H., Gagen, E., Klion, R., Zalzala, A., Vohs, J., Faith, L. A., et al. (2020). Metacognitive reflection and insight therapy: A recovery-oriented treatment approach for psychosis. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 13, 331–341. doi: 10.2147/PRBM.S198628

Marquardt, M., and Waddill, D. (2004). The power of learning in action learning: A conceptual analysis of how the five schools of adult learning theories are incorporated within the practice of action learning. Act. Learn. Res. Pract. 1, 185–202. doi: 10.1080/1476733042000264146

Maslowsky, J., Jager, J., and Hemken, D. (2015). Estimating and interpreting latent variable interactions: A tutorial for applying the latent moderated structural equations method. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 39, 87–96. doi: 10.1177/0165025414552301

Matsumoto-Royo, K., and Ramírez-Montoya, M. S. (2019). “Practice-based teacher education: A literature mapping over the past five years,” in Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality , (Spain: University of Leon), 696–703. doi: 10.1145/3362789.3362791

McAlpine, L., and Weston, C. (2000). Reflection: Issues relating to improving professors’ teaching and students’ learning. Instruct. Sci. 28, 363–385. doi: 10.1023/A:1026583208230

McAlpine, L., Weston, C., Beauchamp, C., Wiseman, C., and Beauchamp, J. (1999). Building a metacognitive model of reflection. High. Educ. 37, 105–131. doi: 10.1023/A:1003548425626

Mezirow, J. (1994). Understanding transformation theory. Adult Educ. Quart. 44, 222–232. doi: 10.1177/074171369404400403

Morgan, G. (2011). Reflections on images of organization and its implications for organization and environment. Organ. Environ. 24, 459–478. doi: 10.1177/1086026611434274

Moritz, S., and Lysaker, P. H. (2018). Metacognition–what did James H. Flavell really say and the implications for the conceptualization and design of metacognitive interventions. Schizophr. Res. 201, 20–26. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2018.06.001

Muthén, B., and Muthén, L. (2017). “Mplus,” in Handbook of item response theory , ed. W. J. van der Linden (London: Chapman and Hall/CRC), 507–518.

Oh, H. (1999). Service quality, customer satisfaction, and customer value: A holistic perspective. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 18, 67–82. doi: 10.1016/S0278-4319(98)00047-4

Osterman, K. F., and Kottkamp, R. B. (2004). Reflective practice for educators: Professional development to improve student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin press.

Panno, A., Lauriola, M., and Figner, B. (2013). Emotion regulation and risk taking: Predicting risky choice in deliberative decision making. Cogn. Emot. 27, 326–334. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2012.707642

Pennequin, V., Questel, F., Delaville, E., Delugre, M., and Maintenant, C. (2020). Metacognition and emotional regulation in children from 8 to 12 years old. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 90, 1–16. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12305

Petty, R. E., and Briñol, P. (2015). Emotion and persuasion: Cognitive and meta-cognitive processes impact attitudes. Cogn. Emot. 29, 1–26. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2014.967183

Philip, L. (2006). Encouraging reflective practice amongst students: A direct assessment approach. Planet 17, 37–39. doi: 10.11120/plan.2006.00170037

Quattrini, G., Marizzoni, M., Magni, L. R., Magnaldi, S., Lanfredi, M., Rossi, G., et al. (2019). Whole-brain microstructural white matter alterations in borderline personality disorder patients. Pers. Ment. Health 13, 96–106. doi: 10.1002/pmh.1441

Rimor, R., and Kozminsky, E. (2003). “An analysis of the reflections of students in online courses,” in Paper presented at Mofet Conference: Didactic Tools for Distance Learning , (Tel Aviv).

Robinson, E. T., Anderson-Harper, H. M., and Kochan, F. K. (2001). Strategies to improve reflective teaching. J. Pharm. Teach. 8, 49–58. doi: 10.1300/J060v08n04_04

Sardeshmukh, S. R., and Vandenberg, R. J. (2017). Integrating moderation and mediation: A structural equation modeling approach. Organ. Res. Methods 20, 721–745. doi: 10.1177/1094428115621609

Schaepkens, S. P. C., Veen, M., and de la Croix, A. (2022). Is reflection like soap? a critical narrative umbrella review of approaches to reflection in medical education research. Adv. Health Sci. Educ. 27, 537–551. doi: 10.1007/s10459-021-10082-7

Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Schon, D. A. (1992). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action (1st ed.). Milton Park: Routledge.

Schön, D. (2017). “Town planning: Limits to reflection-in-action,” in The profession of city planning , eds L. Rodwin and B. Sanyal (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers), 62–83.

Schraw, G., and Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 19, 460–475. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1994.1033

Schunk, D. H. (2008). Metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning: Research recommendations. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 20, 463–467. doi: 10.1007/s10648-008-9086-3

Sellars, M. (2012). Exploring executive function: multiple intelligences’ personalized mapping for success. Int. J. Learn. 18, 293–304. doi: 10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v18i03/47541

Shapiro, S. B., and Reiff, J. (1993). A framework for reflective inquiry on practice: Beyond intuition and experience. Psychol. Rep. 73, 1379–1394. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1993.73.3f.1379

Siddiqui, G. K., Lodhi, H., and Ghazanfar, K. (2020). Can we boost the metacognitive awareness of. prospective teachers through reflective journals? Glob. Soc. Sci. Rev. 5, 190–201. doi: 10.31703/gssr.2020(V-II).18

Smith, E. (2011). Teaching critical reflection. Teach. High. Educ. 16, 211–223. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2010.515022

Spada, M. M., Nikěević, A. V., Moneta, G. B., and Wells, A. (2008). Metacognition, perceived stress, and negative emotion. Person. Indiv. Diff. 44, 1172–1181. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2007.11.010

Stahl, L., and Pry, R. (2005). Attentional flexibility and perseveration: Developmental aspects in young children. Child Neuropsychol. 11, 175–189. doi: 10.1080/092970490911315

Steinberg, L. (2007). Risk taking in adolescence: New perspectives from brain and behavioral science. Curr. Direct. Psychol. Sci. 16, 55–59. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00475.x

Storbeck, J., and Clore, G. L. (2007). On the interdependence of cognition and emotion. Cogn. Emot. 21, 1212–1237. doi: 10.1080/02699930701438020

Tajrishi, K. Z., Mohammadkhani, S., and Jadidi, F. (2011). Metacognitive beliefs and negative emotions. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 30, 530–533.

Trapnell, P. D., and Campbell, J. D. (1999). Private self-consciousness and the five-factor model of personality: Distinguishing rumination from reflection. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 76, 284–304. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.76.2.284

Travis, F., and Shear, J. (2010). Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic self-transcending: Categories to organize meditations from Vedic, Buddhist and Chinese traditions. Conscious. Cogn. 19, 1110–1118. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2010.01.007

Tsai, W., and Lau, A. S. (2013). Cultural differences in emotion regulation during self-reflection on negative personal experiences. Cogn. Emot. 27, 416–429. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2012.715080

Veenman, M. V., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H., and Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacogn. Learn. 1, 3–14. doi: 10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0

Verplanken, B., Friborg, O., Wang, C. E., Trafimow, D., and Woolf, K. (2007). Mental habits: Metacognitive reflection on negative self-thinking. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 92, 526–541. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.526

Whittaker, C., and van Garderen, D. (2009). Using a metacognitive approach with case-based instruction to enhance teacher reflection and promote effective educational practices for diverse learners. Act. Teach. Educ. 31, 5–16. doi: 10.1080/01626620.2009.10463514

Yanqun, Z. (2019). The significance and instruction of metacognition in continuing education. Int. Forum Teach. Stud. 15, 29–37.

Young, J. Q., Van Merrienboer, J., Durning, S., and Ten Cate, O. (2014). Cognitive load theory: Implications for medical education: AMEE Guide No. 86. Med. Teach. 36, 371–384. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2014.889290

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Pract. 41, 64–70. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2

Keywords : reflection, metacognition, emotional regulation, metacognitive reflection, cognitive reappraisal

Citation: Merkebu J, Kitsantas A, Durning SJ and Ma T (2023) What is metacognitive reflection? The moderating role of metacognition on emotional regulation and reflection. Front. Educ. 8:1166195. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1166195

Received: 14 February 2023; Accepted: 16 March 2023; Published: 05 April 2023.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2023 Merkebu, Kitsantas, Durning and Ma. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Jerusalem Merkebu, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Center for Teaching

Metacognition.

Thinking about One’s Thinking |   Putting Metacognition into Practice

Thinking about One’s Thinking

Initially studied for its development in young children (Baker & Brown, 1984; Flavell, 1985), researchers soon began to look at how experts display metacognitive thinking and how, then, these thought processes can be taught to novices to improve their learning (Hatano & Inagaki, 1986).  In How People Learn , the National Academy of Sciences’ synthesis of decades of research on the science of learning, one of the three key findings of this work is the effectiveness of a “‘metacognitive’ approach to instruction” (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000, p. 18).

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).

Metacognitive practices help students become aware of their strengths and weaknesses as learners, writers, readers, test-takers, group members, etc.  A key element is recognizing the limit of one’s knowledge or ability and then figuring out how to expand that knowledge or extend the ability. Those who know their strengths and weaknesses in these areas will be more likely to “actively monitor their learning strategies and resources and assess their readiness for particular tasks and performances” (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, p. 67).

The absence of metacognition connects to the research by Dunning, Johnson, Ehrlinger, and Kruger on “Why People Fail to Recognize Their Own Incompetence” (2003).  They found that “people tend to be blissfully unaware of their incompetence,” lacking “insight about deficiencies in their intellectual and social skills.”  They identified this pattern across domains—from test-taking, writing grammatically, thinking logically, to recognizing humor, to hunters’ knowledge about firearms and medical lab technicians’ knowledge of medical terminology and problem-solving skills (p. 83-84).  In short, “if people lack the skills to produce correct answers, they are also cursed with an inability to know when their answers, or anyone else’s, are right or wrong” (p. 85).  This research suggests that increased metacognitive abilities—to learn specific (and correct) skills, how to recognize them, and how to practice them—is needed in many contexts.

Putting Metacognition into Practice

In “ Promoting Student Metacognition ,” Tanner (2012) offers a handful of specific activities for biology classes, but they can be adapted to any discipline. She first describes four assignments for explicit instruction (p. 116):

• Preassessments—Encouraging Students to Examine Their Current Thinking: “What do I already know about this topic that could guide my learning?”

• Retrospective Postassessments—Pushing Students to Recognize Conceptual Change: “Before this course, I thought evolution was… Now I think that evolution is ….” or “How is my thinking changing (or not changing) over time?”
• Reflective Journals—Providing a Forum in Which Students Monitor Their Own Thinking: “What about my exam preparation worked well that I should remember to do next time? What did not work so well that I should not do next time or that I should change?”

Next are recommendations for developing a “classroom culture grounded in metacognition” (p. 116-118):

• Giving Students License to Identify Confusions within the Classroom Culture:  ask students what they find confusing, acknowledge the difficulties
• Integrating Reflection into Credited Course Work: integrate short reflection (oral or written) that ask students what they found challenging or what questions arose during an assignment/exam/project
• Metacognitive Modeling by the Instructor for Students: model the thinking processes involved in your field and sought in your course by being explicit about “how you start, how you decide what to do first and then next, how you check your work, how you know when you are done” (p. 118)

To facilitate these activities, she also offers three useful tables:

• Questions for students to ask themselves as they plan, monitor, and evaluate their thinking within four learning contexts—in class, assignments, quizzes/exams, and the course as a whole (p. 115)
• Prompts for integrating metacognition into discussions of pairs during clicker activities, assignments, and quiz or exam preparation (p. 117)
• Questions to help faculty metacognitively assess their own teaching (p. 119)

Weimer’s “ Deep Learning vs. Surface Learning: Getting Students to Understand the Difference ” (2012) offers additional recommendations for developing students’ metacognitive awareness and improvement of their study skills:

“[I]t is terribly important that in explicit and concerted ways we make students aware of themselves as learners. We must regularly ask, not only ‘What are you learning?’ but ‘How are you learning?’ We must confront them with the effectiveness (more often ineffectiveness) of their approaches. We must offer alternatives and then challenge students to test the efficacy of those approaches. ” (emphasis added)

She points to a tool developed by Stanger-Hall (2012, p. 297) for her students to identify their study strategies, which she divided into “ cognitively passive ” (“I previewed the reading before class,” “I came to class,” “I read the assigned text,” “I highlighted the text,” et al) and “ cognitively active study behaviors ” (“I asked myself: ‘How does it work?’ and ‘Why does it work this way?’” “I wrote my own study questions,” “I fit all the facts into a bigger picture,” “I closed my notes and tested how much I remembered,” et al) .  The specific focus of Stanger-Hall’s study is tangential to this discussion, 1 but imagine giving students lists like hers adapted to your course and then, after a major assignment, having students discuss which ones worked and which types of behaviors led to higher grades. Even further, follow Lovett’s advice (2013) by assigning “exam wrappers,” which include students reflecting on their previous exam-preparation strategies, assessing those strategies and then looking ahead to the next exam, and writing an action plan for a revised approach to studying. A common assignment in English composition courses is the self-assessment essay in which students apply course criteria to articulate their strengths and weaknesses within single papers or over the course of the semester. These activities can be adapted to assignments other than exams or essays, such as projects, speeches, discussions, and the like.

As these examples illustrate, for students to become more metacognitive, they must be taught the concept and its language explicitly (Pintrich, 2002; Tanner, 2012), though not in a content-delivery model (simply a reading or a lecture) and not in one lesson. Instead, the explicit instruction should be “designed according to a knowledge construction approach,” or students need to recognize, assess, and connect new skills to old ones, “and it needs to take place over an extended period of time” (Zohar & David, p. 187).  This kind of explicit instruction will help students expand or replace existing learning strategies with new and more effective ones, give students a way to talk about learning and thinking, compare strategies with their classmates’ and make more informed choices, and render learning “less opaque to students, rather than being something that happens mysteriously or that some students ‘get’ and learn and others struggle and don’t learn” (Pintrich, 2002, p. 223).

• What to Expect (when reading philosophy)
• The Ultimate Goal (of reading philosophy)
• Basic Good Reading Behaviors
• Important Background Information, or discipline- and course-specific reading practices, such as “reading for enlightenment” rather than information, and “problem-based classes” rather than historical or figure-based classes
• A Three-Part Reading Process (pre-reading, understanding, and evaluating)
• Flagging, or annotating the reading
• Linear vs. Dialogical Writing (Philosophical writing is rarely straightforward but instead “a monologue that contains a dialogue” [p. 365].)

What would such a handout look like for your discipline?

Students can even be metacognitively prepared (and then prepare themselves) for the overarching learning experiences expected in specific contexts . Salvatori and Donahue’s The Elements (and Pleasures) of Difficulty (2004) encourages students to embrace difficult texts (and tasks) as part of deep learning, rather than an obstacle.  Their “difficulty paper” assignment helps students reflect on and articulate the nature of the difficulty and work through their responses to it (p. 9).  Similarly, in courses with sensitive subject matter, a different kind of learning occurs, one that involves complex emotional responses.  In “ Learning from Their Own Learning: How Metacognitive and Meta-affective Reflections Enhance Learning in Race-Related Courses ” (Chick, Karis, & Kernahan, 2009), students were informed about the common reactions to learning about racial inequality (Helms, 1995; Adams, Bell, & Griffin, 1997; see student handout, Chick, Karis, & Kernahan, p. 23-24) and then regularly wrote about their cognitive and affective responses to specific racialized situations.  The students with the most developed metacognitive and meta-affective practices at the end of the semester were able to “clear the obstacles and move away from” oversimplified thinking about race and racism ”to places of greater questioning, acknowledging the complexities of identity, and redefining the world in racial terms” (p. 14).

Ultimately, metacognition requires students to “externalize mental events” (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, p. 67), such as what it means to learn, awareness of one’s strengths and weaknesses with specific skills or in a given learning context, plan what’s required to accomplish a specific learning goal or activity, identifying and correcting errors, and preparing ahead for learning processes.

————————

1 Students who were tested with short answer in addition to multiple-choice questions on their exams reported more cognitively active behaviors than those tested with just multiple-choice questions, and these active behaviors led to improved performance on the final exam.

• Adams, Maurianne, Bell, Lee Ann, and Griffin, Pat. (1997). Teaching for diversity and social justice: A sourcebook . New York: Routledge.
• Bransford, John D., Brown Ann L., and Cocking Rodney R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school . Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
• Baker, Linda, and Brown, Ann L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading.  In Paul David Pearson, Michael L. Kamil, Rebecca Barr, & Peter Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of research in reading: Volume III (pp. 353–395).  New York: Longman.
• Brown, Ann L. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading. In Rand J. Spiro, Bertram C. Bruce, and William F. Brewer, (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and education (pp. 453-482). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Chick, Nancy, Karis, Terri, and Kernahan, Cyndi. (2009). Learning from their own learning: how metacognitive and meta-affective reflections enhance learning in race-related courses . International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(1). 1-28.
• Commander, Nannette Evans, and Valeri-Gold, Marie. (2001). The learning portfolio: A valuable tool for increasing metacognitive awareness . The Learning Assistance Review, 6 (2), 5-18.
• Concepción, David. (2004). Reading philosophy with background knowledge and metacognition . Teaching Philosophy , 27 (4). 351-368.
• Dunning, David, Johnson, Kerri, Ehrlinger, Joyce, and Kruger, Justin. (2003) Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence . Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12 (3). 83-87.
• Flavell,  John H. (1985). Cognitive development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Hatano, Giyoo and Inagaki, Kayoko. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In Harold Stevenson, Azuma, Horishi, and Hakuta, Kinji (Eds.), Child development and education in Japan, New York: W.H. Freeman.
• Helms, Janet E. (1995). An update of Helms’ white and people of color racial identity models . In J.G. Ponterotto, Joseph G., Casas, Manuel, Suzuki, Lisa A., and Alexander, Charlene M. (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 181-198) . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Lovett, Marsha C. (2013). Make exams worth more than the grade. In Matthew Kaplan, Naomi Silver, Danielle LaVague-Manty, and Deborah Meizlish (Eds.), Using reflection and metacognition to improve student learning: Across the disciplines, across the academy . Sterling, VA: Stylus.
• Palincsar, Annemarie Sullivan, and Brown, Ann L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities . Cognition and Instruction, 1 (2). 117-175.
• Pintrich, Paul R. (2002). The Role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing . Theory into Practice, 41 (4). 219-225.
• Salvatori, Mariolina Rizzi, and Donahue, Patricia. (2004). The Elements (and pleasures) of difficulty . New York: Pearson-Longman.
• Scardamalia, Marlene, Bereiter, Carl, and Steinbach, Rosanne. (1984). Teachability of reflective processes in written composition . Cognitive Science , 8, 173-190.
• Schoenfeld, Alan H. (1991). On mathematics as sense making: An informal attack on the fortunate divorce of formal and informal mathematics. In James F. Voss, David N. Perkins, and Judith W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 311-344). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Stanger-Hall, Kathrin F. (2012). Multiple-choice exams: An obstacle for higher-level thinking in introductory science classes . Cell Biology Education—Life Sciences Education, 11(3), 294-306.
• Tanner, Kimberly D.  (2012). Promoting student metacognition . CBE—Life Sciences Education, 11, 113-120.
• Weimer, Maryellen.  (2012, November 19). Deep learning vs. surface learning: Getting students to understand the difference . Retrieved from the Teaching Professor Blog from http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-professor-blog/deep-learning-vs-surface-learning-getting-students-to-understand-the-difference/ .
• Zohar, Anat, and David, Adi Ben. (2009). Paving a clear path in a thick forest: a conceptual analysis of a metacognitive component . Metacognition Learning , 4 , 177-195.

Photo credit:  wittygrittyinvisiblegirl via  Compfight cc

Photo Credit: Helga Weber via Compfight cc

Photo Credit: fiddle oak via Compfight cc

Teaching Guides

Quick Links

• Services for Departments and Schools
• Examples of Online Instructional Modules

The case for metacognitive reflection: a theory integrative review with implications for medical education

• Open access
• Published: 12 February 2024
• Volume 29 , pages 1481–1500, ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Jerusalem Merkebu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3707-8920 1 ,
• Mario Veen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2550-7193 2 ,
• Shera Hosseini 3 &
• Lara Varpio   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1412-4341 4  

3281 Accesses

2 Citations

Explore all metrics

The concepts of metacognitive reflection, reflection, and metacognition are distinct but have undergone shifts in meaning as they migrated into medical education. Conceptual clarity is essential to the construction of the knowledge base of medical education and its educational interventions. We conducted a theoretical integrative review across diverse bodies of literature with the goal of understanding what metacognitive reflection is. We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsychInfo, and Web of Science databases, including all peer-reviewed research articles and theoretical papers as well as book chapters that addressed the topic, with no limitations for date, language, or location. A total of 733 articles were identified and 87 were chosen after careful review and application of exclusion criteria. The work of conceptually and empirically delineating metacognitive reflection has begun. Contributions have been made to root metacognitive reflection in the concept of metacognition and moving beyond it to engage in cycles of reflection. Other work has underscored its affective component, transformational nature, and contextual factors. Despite this merging of threads to develop a richer conceptualization, a theory of how metacognitive reflection works is elusive. Debates address whether metacognition drives reflection or vice versa. It has also been suggested that learners evolve along on a continuum from thinking, to task-related reflection, to self-reflection, and finally to metacognitive reflection. Based on prior theory and research, as well as the findings of this review, we propose the following conceptualization: Metacognitive reflection involves heightened internal observation, awareness, monitoring, and regulation of our own knowledge, experiences, and emotions by questioning and examining cognition and emotional processes to continually refine and enhance our perspectives and decisions while thoughtfully accounting for context. We argue that metacognitive reflection brings a shift in perspective and can support valuable reconceptualization for lifelong learning.

Similar content being viewed by others

Health professionals and students’ experiences of reflective writing in learning: A qualitative meta-synthesis

Reflection in medical education: intellectual humility, discovery, and know-how

The reflective zombie: Problematizing the conceptual framework of reflection in medical education

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Medical education is rife with concepts that have traveled into our field from medical science, psychology, humanities, and social and educational sciences (Veen et al., 2020 ). These traveling concepts (Bal, 2009 ) are often revised and reconstructed as they move into and across our field; the denotative meaning (i.e., the dictionary definition) and connotative value (i.e., the socially informed significance) of these concepts shift along these trajectories (Kreidler, 1998 ). One such concept is metacognitive reflection. Recent literature reviews have revealed persistent use of this concept in research addressing reflection or metacognition (Hargreaves, 2016 ; Jalali et al., 2015 ; Sandars, 2009 ). However, these three concepts—metacognitive reflection, reflection, and metacognition—are distinct but have undergone shifts in meaning as they migrated into medical education (Veen & Tuin, 2021 ).

This variability can create problems for medical educators because conceptual clarity is essential to the construction of both the field’s knowledge base and its educational interventions. For instance, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education’s (ACGME) common program requirements mandate that residents demonstrate the ability “to continuously improve patient care based on constant self-evaluation and lifelong learning.” To address this mandate, graduate medical education research often focuses on questions of training and testing residents’ abilities to engage in reflection (Winkel et al., 2017 ), metacognition (Mitchell et al., 2009 ), and metacognitive reflection (Gillon & Radford, 2012 ). Are these investigations addressing ACGME’s self-evaluation and lifelong learning skills from foundationally different directions? Have these terms been conflated, making it difficult to tease apart which findings relate specifically to one concept or another?

Given that reflection, metacognition, and metacognitive reflection are essential skills for lifelong learning (Rhem, 2013 ), we set out to understand the differences between these concepts and to construct conceptual clarity for each. There are long traditions of research into reflection and into metacognition; therefore, we first review the current state of knowledge about these concepts, highlighting how they overlap while remaining distinct. Since the concept of metacognitive reflection has more recently appeared in the literature, we conducted a theory integrative review (Battistone et al., 2023 ; Cornoldi et al., 2014 ; Kuiper & Pesut, 2004 ; Verplanken et al., 2007 ) to examine this concept. Before describing the methods used for this synthesis, we begin with an overview of the literature on reflection and metacognition followed by the intersection of metacognitive reflection. This summary describes the theoretical framework shaping our study.

Reflection: an overview of the concept

While different descriptions are used across the literature, reflection is commonly framed as an ongoing systematic, disciplined, back-and-forth mental activity of observing, questioning, analyzing, exploring, and refining thoughts/actions for gaining clarity in understanding and achieving productive outcomes (Bright, 1996 ; Cole & Knowles, 2000 ; Dewey, 1933 ; Fat’hi & Behzadpour, 2011 ; Killion & Todnem, 1991 ; Nguyen et al., 2014 ; Osterman & Kottkamp, 2004 ). Inherent in reflection is an inquiry disposition—i.e., an openness to discovery and exploration (Larrivee & Cooper, 2006 ; Nguyen et al., 2014 ). Dewey, the pioneer philosopher and educator for this concept, described reflection as the ability to think critically and reciprocally between two opposing points while suspending judgment (Dewey, 1933 ). He posited that reflection is an essential part of the learning process because it allows individuals to actively engage with and make important meaning out of their experiences. According to Dewey, the processes involved in igniting reflection include experiencing perplexity/doubt and wanting to investigate (e.g., to corroborate or refute) the matter in question. Reflection involves critically analyzing and evaluating experiences to gain deeper insights and understanding. For Dewey, reflection requires work: “The building blocks of reflection comprise discipline…since these habits are not a gift of nature.” Through the work of reflective inquiry, individuals can identify the underlying assumptions and beliefs that shape their actions and decisions, and they can assess the effectiveness of their actions in achieving desired outcomes. Dewey argued that reflective thinking is not limited to academic or intellectual pursuits but can be applied to any aspect of life, including moral dilemmas. In fact, Dewey also underscored the importance of action, of not simply being locked in cycles of reflection: “Application is as much an intrinsic part of genuine reflective inquiry as is alert observation or reasoning itself. There is such a thing as too much thinking, as when action is paralyzed by the multiplicity of views suggested by a situation.” He maintained that, by engaging in reflective thinking, individuals can develop more intentional approaches that balance process and product. For Dewey, then, reflection is an active and dynamic ordered process that intricately governs our actions:

Reflection involves not simply a sequence of ideas, but a consequence a consecutive ordering in such a way that each determines the next as its proper outcome, while each in turn leans back on its predecessors. The successive portions of the reflective thought grow out of one another and support another; they do not come and go in a medley. Each phase is a step from something to something. Each term leaves a deposit which is utilized in the next term.

While Dewey was a foundational and influential scholar in this area, other conceptualizations of reflection have been offered. Reflection has also been described as higher-level thinking (Lasley, 1992 ), as cognitive risk-taking (Schon, 1987 ), and as a tool for posing thoughtful and significant questions to enhance the quality of decisions (Robinson et al., 2001 ). As this diversity illustrates, there is no single operational definition for reflection (Fat’hi & Behzadpour, 2011 ). Despite the varied definitions, there are common premises behind research into reflection. For instance, one tenet is that reflection is not about developing certainty , but is instead focused on exploring and questioning one’s own thinking. Larrivee and Cooper ( 2006 ) suggested that reflection is exploration for the purpose of understanding; this view foregrounds reflection’s orientation as being focused on curiosity. Similarly, Dewey posited that by operating in a mode of protracted inquiry, reflection enables the individual to unearth blind and opaque spots in one’s thinking, to bring to light the hidden structures of one’s thinking that lie beneath consciousness (Dewey, 1933 ). Curiosity can serve as a tool for exposing unconscious mental models.

Another premise underpinning reflection is that distorted perceptions must be challenged and rejected because they can negatively impact the quality of one’s decision. Dewey declared that reflection enables the individual to become aware of limitations, gaps of understanding, and partial absences that exist even as they strive to make meaning (Dewey, 1933 ). Shapiro and Reiff proposed that reflection supports the discovery of such weaknesses and forms the basis for considering alternative perspectives (Shapiro & Reiff, 1993 ).

Finally, reflection is also steeped in the fundamental assumption that all ideas are subject to questioning, and none are exempt (Cole & Knowles, 2000 ; Nguyen et al., 2014 ). This mode of thinking encourages bringing to light embedded assumptions and requires critically challenging any established beliefs. This is particularly relevant for escaping psychic prisons (Morgan, 2007 )—i.e., favored ways of thinking that become inescapable traps. Reflection confronts entrenched mental models and tests dogmas by consistently asking questions related to each phenomenon.

With these three premises as a foundation, we can see that reflection is focused on making meaning of experiences from within the situated contexts in which the experience occurs (Boud, 1999 ; Dewey, 1933 ; Kinsella, 2010 ; Schon, 1987 ). Reflection supports the development of knowledge informed and formed by reflective practice, allowing the individual to perpetually expand to a wider range of possibilities (Larrivee & Cooper, 2006 ). Schon proposed that one can frame and reframe problems until insightful discoveries are generated through the continuous spiral of reflection (Schon, 1987 ). In this recursive process, the reflective thinker generates and tests optimal solutions and pursues action to deliberately incorporate new or enhanced understanding into action (Copeland et al., 1993 ).

Metacognition: an overview of the concept

Metacognition differs from reflection. Metacognition has been part of the works of the most prominent figures in psychology (e.g., Piaget & Kamii, 1978 ) and, across its history, it has undergone several evolutions in its conceptualization. Flavell, an early leading researcher studying metacognition, defined it as “any knowledge or cognitive activity that takes as its object, or regulates, any aspect of any cognitive enterprise” (Flavell et al., 1993 ). Today, metacognition is still commonly articulated as thinking about thinking or cognition about cognition (Dimmitt & McCormick, 2012 ; Flavell, 1979 ) . While this simple summary is widely used, a coherent definition has yet to be widely adopted (Dimmitt & McCormick, 2012 ; Dinsmore et al., 2008a ; Schraw, 2001 ; Schunk, 2008 ; Veenman et al., 2006 ; Winters et al., 2008 ). However, two commonalities across the literature act as foundational premises for research into metacognition.

One premise, which is aligned with Flavell’s seminal work ( 1979 ), posits that metacognition consists of both knowledge and experiences. Metacognitive knowledge is the individual’s acquired beliefs about his or her own and others’ cognitive orientations about people, tasks, and/or strategies; the function of metacognitive knowledge is to assess the quality of any information presented (e.g., trustworthiness, coherence). To meet the cognitive demands at hand, the individual needs to assess and manage the variations in metacognitive knowledge. Metacognitive experiences are the conscious cognitive or affective experiences that accompany any intellectual activity (Flavell, 1979 ); they interact with metacognitive knowledge to inform and shape cognitive or metacognitive goals. These metacognitive experiences can occur at any time—i.e., before, during, or after a cognitive activity—and can take many different forms—i.e., short to lengthy, simple to intricate. In sum, then, metacognition consists of both metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive experiences that co-exist and mutually inform each other.

Another commonly held proposition is that metacognition involves the planning, regulating, monitoring, and controlling of cognitive processes (Martinez, 2006 ). This echoes Schraw and Dennison’s argument that metacognition consists of knowledge about cognition (i.e., procedural, declarative, and conditional knowledge) as well as regulation of cognition (i.e., evaluating, monitoring, debugging, and managing information) (Schraw & Dennison, 1994 ).

These premises are evident in Nelson and Narens’s widely employed model of metacognition which describes the interaction between two levels of processing: object-level and meta-level (Nelson et al., 1994 ). Object-level monitoring involves being aware of cognitive processes, being aware of strategies used during a task, and evaluating them for effectiveness. Meta-level control refers to the strategies and actions employed to regulate and adjust cognitive processes based on the results of monitoring results. Nelson and Narens’s functional approach to metacognition provides a structure for understanding how monitoring precedes control through feedback loops. These authors point out that metacognition makes learning more effective by influencing behavior at various stages of processing.

The concept of metacognition grew primarily within the domain of cognitive sciences (Cornoldi et al., 2014 ). Steeped in that orientation, metacognition is the awareness of and regulation of (a) our beliefs about our own and others’ thinking processes, and (b) our cognitive and affective experiences of our own thinking processes. The concept is limited to addressing the individual’s cognitive activity and the thinking about knowledge and experiences that happens within the individual (Azevedo, 2020 ; Cornoldi et al., 2014 ; Desautel, 2009 ).

The overlap between reflection and metacognition

Both reflection and metacognition address psychologically oriented phenomena that govern reflectively thinking about thinking, but they do so in very different ways. Reflection is grounded in the active work of meaning-making in which both individuals and groups engage (Gash, 2014 ; Veen & Croix, 2017 ). It focuses on developing knowledge through constant questioning. That knowledge is never firm because reflection encourages constant curiosity and so rejects any notion of true, unequivocal knowledge. In contrast, the thinking about thinking addressed by metacognition pays careful attention to the processes of the individual. Instead of focusing on the work of meaning-making, metacognition focuses on the awareness of and regulation of cognition. There is one cognitive reality in which the individual is engaged; via metacognition, the individual strives to develop an ever more accurate understanding of that cognition.

While this distinction is present in the literature, the programs of research that address these concepts clearly illustrate how clear definitions or distinctions have consistently failed to frame their investigations (Azevedo, 2020 ; Kinsella, 2010 ). In fact, Ford and Yore (Ford & Yore, 2012 ) warned that “the fuzzy borders that exist between metacognition and reflection are converging.” These fuzzy borders are further complicated because metacognitive reflection is a term that is increasingly used across these bodies of literature but is also ill defined.

Similarly, the fuzzy borders between reflection and metacognition are evident in the health professions education (HPE) literature. For instance, the overlap between the two constructs is demonstrated in this definition of regulation of cognition offered by Medina et al.: “Regulation of cognition corresponded to knowledge about the ways that students plan, implement, and monitor their learning through self-reflection” (Medina et al., 2017 ). Here, we see that reflection is equated with the aspects of metacognition. Recently, Linsenmeyer and Long, studying participants in undergraduate medical education, presented metacognition as a type of reflection: “When students conduct reflection, they foster a way of seeing and being, a metacognitive stance toward their own thinking, and toward the structures and forces that are shaping their professional identity” (Linsenmeyer & Long, 2023 ). Here, metacognition is also cultivated by reflection. Significantly, much of the HPE literature offers assertions that reflection is a metacognitive process and/or the constructs subtly blend together at the margins (Cale et al., 2023 ; Cloude et al., 2022 ; Cui et al., 2019 ; Cutrer et al., 2013 ; González & Ruiz, 2012 ; O’Loughlin & Griffith, 2020 ; Sandars, 2009 ). Such conflations are common in the field, suggesting that the fuzzy borders between these terms that is seen in the psychology and education literature is also evident in HPE. The lack of clarity between these terms is problematic for HPE since metacognition and reflection are regarded as holding significant value, allowing students and practitioners to critically analyze their own thought processes, to identify strategies that lead to effective learning, and to make necessary adjustments for further improvement (Asadzandi et al., 2022 ; Medina et al., 2017 ; O’Loughlin & Griffith, 2020 ; Pusic et al., 2022 ). Metacognition and reflection are also valued in HPE for supporting individuals’ ability to identify and rectify biases, misconceptions, or faulty reasoning that may be hindering optimal clinical reasoning across diverse contexts (Cloude et al., 2022 ; Cutrer et al., 2013 ; González & Ruiz, 2012 ; Kosior et al., 2019 ; Kuiper & Pesut, 2004 ). Clearly, the problem that plagues other disciplines is evident in the HPE literature as well: although reflection and metacognition are distinct concepts, our research often fails to delineate between them. This problem is heightened because of the emergence of research into metacognitive reflection—another separate concept that intentionally combines its constituent concepts in specific ways.

Metacognitive reflection: a concept in the making

There is rising interest in the integration of metacognition and reflection and in the use of the term metacognitive reflection in the medical education literature and beyond (Graber et al., 2012 ; Hargreaves, 2016 ; Hodges, 2015 ; Sandars, 2009 ); therefore, it is important to have a clear understanding of how these three terms align and diverge. We need clear definitions of these terms and of the conceptualizations underpinning them to guide research in our field. It may be that our research will require us to revise definitions. It may be that disagreements in conceptualizations can be the source of productive knowledge development. However, if we do not begin with explicit definitions and conceptualizations, we risk building more confusion than insights. The concept of metacognitive reflection is increasingly present in research addressing reflection and metacognition, but is rarely defined and often used interchangeably with its two constitutive concepts. Given this lack of clarity, we set out to analyze the literature addressing metacognitive reflection—manuscripts that offer definitions of the term and/or that offer a theory into the concept—and to synthesize the different conceptualizations found therein.

To realize this analysis and synthesis, we engaged in a theory integrative review (TIR) (Battistone et al., 2023 ), a type of literature review that helps define a concept and synthesize theories when many variations exist (Torraco, 2005 ). TIRs are designed “to critically examine theories which address a particular phenomenon, bringing two or more theories into conversation with each other in order to reformulate, integrate, or purposefully synthesize the conceptualizations offered” (Battistone et al., 2023 ). As a form of knowledge synthesis developed within the constructivist tradition, TIRs build a subjectively informed aggregation of the theories (and their associated definitions) addressing a particular phenomenon. We followed the four-step process for TIRs described by Battistone et al. ( 2023 ).

Step 1: Define the phenomenon

The phenomenon of interest was metacognitive reflection. As part of our work to define this phenomenon, we have reviewed the literature on reflection and metacognition. Our research question asked: What is metacognitive reflection? To address this question, we also explored several subquestions: Is metacognitive reflection the inherent overlap of reflection and metacognition? What features distinguish metacognitive reflection from its named components? How can metacognitive reflection be best conceptualized to advance the purposes of medical education?

Step 2: Create the research team

We constructed our research team to reflect specific interests and ensure that a variety of motivations informed the research. Our team consisted of medical education scholars with a range of interests and expertise. All four members of the research team actively engage in qualitative research focused on medical education. JM’s training in educational psychology and expertise in reflection and metacognition ensured that a broad range of literature was explored to inform the synthesis and that contradictions in the literature were regularly considered to shape the team’s analysis. An expert in philosophy and interdisciplinary research, MV’s expertise guided the team’s efforts to ensure that the ontological and epistemological roots of each theory and definition included in the analysis were respected and maintained. As a senior member of the medical education community, LV focused on ensuring methodological rigor, considering implications of the findings for related bodies of research, and ensuring the ontological and epistemological consistency from the original theories through to amalgamation outcomes. SH is a social scientist and education evaluation researcher with a background in psychology and so also offered expertise in metacognition. Finally, at an earlier stage we consulted with AdlC, a medical education researcher and expert on reflection. The team’s research meetings often involved discussions about the nature and depth of the interpretations we were making about reflection, metacognition, and metacognitive reflection. We also debated how the synthesis could be relevant to and influential for the field of medical education.

Step 3: Explore and analyze the data

To identify all pertinent literature for this review, we searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsychInfo , and Web of Science databases. Our search included all peer-reviewed research articles and theoretical papers published as well as book chapters that addressed metacognitive reflection. The search was not restricted by date, language, or country of publication. We did not restrict the search to HPE literature; instead, we searched across disciplines and fields of inquiry since metacognitive reflection is a relatively new concept being used in the literature. (According to our search, the term metacognitive reflection was first used by Karmiloff-Smith in 1979, while Dewey’s descriptions of reflection date back to the early 1930s.) Recognizing that it can take decades for conceptualizations of complex concepts like metacognitive reflection to become stable, we looked across domains in hopes of seeing how the term is stabilizing (or has stabilized) in any domain. With assistance from a university research librarian, a search of electronic databases was conducted in October 2020 and was rerun to capture new publications in September 2022. Search terms included “metacognitive reflection,” “metacognition” AND “reflection.”

This search identified 1133 papers; after deduplication, 733 articles remained in the corpus. Since the purpose of the review was to synthesize theories and definitions of metacognitive reflection, our initial review process involved determining which articles contained sufficiently rich descriptions to act as data for analysis. Articles that did not offer explicit conceptualizations or definitions of metacognitive reflection were excluded. For instance, we excluded articles that used the term metacognitive reflection as an adjective describing a different term (Seppanen, 2022 ) and papers focused solely on metacognition (Larkin, 2009 ; Pressley, 2005 ) or reflection (Grushka et al., 2005 ; So et al., 2018 ) that failed to directly or indirectly discuss metacognitive reflection. We also excluded articles addressing Metacognitive Reflection and Insight Therapy (MERIT)—a psychotherapeutic approach used with patients with mental illnesses.

With these exclusion criteria in mind, 30 articles from the corpus were sampled and reviewed by JM and AdlC, resulting in 14 conflicts. Resolving these conflicts began through conversation with MV, who read these 14 manuscripts. This high number of conflicts highlighted the high variability in the use of the term metacognitive reflection across the corpus and the implications of that variability—e.g., if we adhered too closely to one author’s definition, then many other authors’ conceptualizations (and their manuscripts) would be removed from the corpus; if we incorporated some definitions, then there was no difference between metacognitive reflection and either reflection or metacognition. LV then joined these conversations, working collaboratively with the team to analyze definitions across the 30 articles to understand core aspects of the descriptions of metacognitive reflection. Once consensus was achieved, 9 of the 30 articles were identified for full review and an approach for reviewing the titles and abstracts for inclusion markers was established. Next, two authors (JM, SH) appraised the title and abstract of all remaining papers in the corpus, excluding 636 articles that failed to meet the inclusion criteria, thereby leaving 97 articles for full-text review. During full-text review, 12 manuscripts were excluded from the corpus but, via hand searching of references and updating the search, 7 articles were added. Ultimately, 87 articles comprised the corpus for the TIR.

Step 4: Integrate the literature

The full research team was involved in analyzing each paper in the corpus to identify the definition of metacognitive reflection presented and any underlying theory (i.e., premises that connected in a logical manner to address metacognitive reflection). In keeping with Parse’s criteria for studying theory (Parse, 2005 ), we focused on the structure of these theories (i.e., historical origins, foundational assumptions, principal conceptualizations, and relational statements) and their processes (i.e., the coherence, integrations, and heuristic potential of the theories). In this integration work, the research team sought to make clear how some authors’ definitions clustered, and the key aspects of those definitions that separated different clusters. This work involved looking for illustrative cases of each cluster and contrasting them with negative cases which then became the foundation for identifying a cluster that had a notably different definition. We also focused on different structures and processes of the theories offered in each of these clusters. Once these definitions, structures, and processes were made clear, we then engaged in analysis across these clusters to identify key features, principles, and premises of metacognitive reflection.

Our analysis revealed that (a) metacognitive reflection has been used to address the ways in which the concepts of reflection and metacognition overlap; and (b) researchers are increasingly interested in understanding this overlap (Alt & Raichel, 2020 ; Barley, 2012 ; Lonie & Desai, 2015a ; McCabe & Olimpo, 2020 ; Sawicki & Wegener, 2018 ). This overlap consists of attention to the examination of metacognition and of internally oriented thinking—i.e., reflectively thinking about thinking. However, as illustrated in (Table  1 ; Candy et al., 1985 ; Davis, 2000 ; Dinsmore et al., 2008b ; Hargis & Marotta, 2011 ; Sandars, 2009 ; Seifert, 2007 ; Siddiqui & Dubey, 2018 ), many scholars have conflated the terms reflection and metacognition in their research (i.e., they use the term reflection to define metacognition and vice versa). Further complicating this situation is that some researchers offer disparate conceptualizations, and others have even begun to informally reconceptualize reflection and metacognition as a single concept—i.e., as metacognitive reflection (Bormotova, 2010 ; Gillon & Radford, 2012 ; Hargis & Marotta, 2011 ). This makes clearly articulating metacognitive reflection as a distinct concept more challenging because much of the literature fails to account for the fact that reflection and metacognition are themselves different concepts. In other words, we contend that simply conceptualizing metacognitive reflection as the overlap between reflection and metacognition fails to capture its uniqueness (Granville & Dison, 2005 ).

The case for metacognitive reflection as a distinct concept

Our analysis of the corpus revealed that the work of conceptually and empirically delineating metacognitive reflection as a concept separate from both reflection and metacognition has begun. Verplanken et al. are among the few researchers who have described that delineation:

Metacognitive reflection refers to the appraisal, monitoring, or control of one’s cognitions or mental functioning where various types of metacognitions may be distinguished. For instance, one may reflect on the target of thoughts, the origin of thoughts, the amount of thoughts, the valence of thoughts or consequences of thoughts (Verplanken et al., 2007 ).

Here, the definition for metacognitive reflection is deeply rooted in the concept of metacognition, where individuals ascend from one layer to another by adapting their cognitions (Drigas et al., 2022a ).

We suggest that, in keeping with this orientation, it is useful to conceptualize metacognitive reflection as starting with processes of metacognition. Then, in metacognitive reflection, the individual moves beyond metacognition to engage in cycles of reflection—i.e., learners examine their thinking to uncover assumptions and constructs behind their actions to constantly question their strategies. These reflections add to metacognition an awareness and consideration of context, emotions, and other factors (Drigas et al., 2022b ; Wynn et al., 2019 ).

Therefore, to conceptualize metacognitive reflection, we can use the aforementioned definition from Verplanken et al. ( 2007 ) as a starting point, which we then enhance with work from Granville and Dison, who state:

Reflection becomes metacognitive when it involves evaluating one’s own thinking processes. Metacognitive reflection goes beyond mere information processing; it concerns awareness of the thinking and the learning; it is learning to learn, evaluate, and correct the information processing. Metacognitive reflection happens when the reflection becomes more articulated, elaborated, and creative; it goes beyond the task itself to the wider implications of the work at hand (Granville & Dison, 2005 ).

As this excerpt illustrates, Granville and Dison bring the concepts of reflection and metacognition together in an additive way to define metacognitive reflection. They take the idea of metacognition (i.e., the monitoring, regulation, and awareness of our knowledge and experiences) and add the processes of reflection (i.e., reflecting to support learning—that is beyond knowledge—via constant elaboration).

Additionally, we can enrich this definition through Cornoldi’s et al. ( 1998 ) and Grossman’s ( 2009 ) work, thereby underscoring how metacognitive reflection also involves an affective component. Cornoldi proposed:

Metacognitive reflection is not only represented by its most evident, aware, verbalizable portion; it also includes a part not so easy to verbalize that refers to affective characteristics that include: intuitions, sensations, emotions, autobiographical memories, and self-evaluations (Cornoldi et al., 1998 ).

Further enhancing this appreciation for affective characteristics, Grossman ( 2009 ) described how the individual’s mental structures change when moving from metacognitive to more intensive or transformative reflection levels. Grossman described this movement as a mature psychological space that allows inner experience (i.e., thoughts, perceptions, affect, and actions) to be an object available for responsible, self-authored, higher consciousness-driven, reflective observation which has the capacity to change one’s frame of reference. Grossman emphasized that reflecting on one’s thoughts and feelings is not a simple process of learning to make new distinctions; it requires a transformation in the way the mind is organized .

Finally, metacognitive reflection accounts for additional reflective dimensions such as context. We can harness the work of Mason et al. ( 2010 ) and Sawicki and Wegener ( 2018 ) to again enhance the definition of metacognitive reflection to account for these other factors. Mason, Boldrin, and Ariasi considered metacognition as

a reflective activity about knowledge and knowing in the finer-grained and context sensitive spaces in which they are activated … since different contexts trigger different resources.… Metacognition in context provides some preliminary evidence that high self-reflection in learning from multiple sources may also help the activation of more sophisticated beliefs in evaluating the knowledge at hand (Mason et al., 2010 ).

Similarly, Sawicki and Wegener defined metacognitive reflection as pertaining to one’s consideration of how a setting, thought, or action would affect one’s metacognitions (Sawicki & Wegener, 2018 ).

With this enhanced set of considerations in mind, it appears that metacognitive reflection does involve aspects of reflection and metacognition, but that it is also distinct from those two concepts. Metacognitive reflection can take various forms and can vary greatly depending on the factors that influence the reflection activity that follows metacognition (e.g., the emotional range in the reflection activity that colors the metacognitive work).

The missing theory of metacognitive reflection

While our integrative analysis has allowed us to merge several threads in the literature to develop a richer conceptualization of metacognitive reflection, engaging in the synthesis of insights into metacognitive reflection and theorizing how it works is a more elusive goal. Some researchers, whose arguments we have incorporated in our conceptualization, suggest that metacognition drives reflection (Grossman, 2009 ) and argue that “metacognitive activities … engage and encourage the development of reflection” (Lonie & Desai, 2015b ). Conversely, others propose that reflection promotes metacognition and, accordingly, metacognitive capacity is developed by promoting reflection (Gonullu & Artar, 2014 ; Tarricone, 2011 ). For instance, Tarricone’s work suggests that a dialectical connection exists between metacognition and reflection but that reflection is a facilitator of metacognition (Tarricone, 2011 ). Adding to this confusion, some researchers focus on metacognition being a component of reflection and vice versa (Quintana et al., 2005 ; Siddiqui et al., 2020 ; Waghmare et al., 2016 ), while others use the terms synonymously (Alt & Raichel, 2020 ; Hamm, 2014 ; Kuiper & Pesut, 2004 ; Levin, 1995 ; Lewis, 2019 ) and, finally, others acknowledge that they are distinct lines of research (Barley, 2012 ; Bartimote-Aufflick et al., 2010 ; McAdoo & Manwaring, 2009 ; Mitchell et al., 2009 ; Walters et al., 2015 ).

These are just some of the ways reflection and metacognition are conflated. No clear premises cut across the literature to help us understand and theorize metacognitive reflection as a separate concept. In other words, sometimes the term metacognitive reflection is inferred to capture elements of both constructs (Cacciamani et al., 2012 ; Desaute, 2009 ; Lysaker et al., 2019 ; Mitchell et al., 2009 ; Molesworth et al., 2011 ; Sawicki & Wegener, 2018 ; Scoresby & Shelton, 2014 ), and other times it is mentioned but not defined, in the absence of both constructs (Makalela, 2015 ; Mason et al., 2010 ; Salovich & Rapp, 2021 ). There are variations in definitions; for instance, Becker et al. (2023) conceptualized metacognitive reflection as “guiding people to systematically reflect on their decision-making strategies,” whereas Moshman characterized it “as an awareness of one’s own inferences and to recognize inference as a distinct source of knowledge” (Moshman, 1991 ). To date, the clearest work in this space has come from Granville and Dison, who suggested that learners evolve along on a continuum from thinking, to task-related reflection, to self-reflection, and finally to metacognitive reflection (Granville & Dison, 2005 ). Therefore, Granville and Dison’s work (Granville & Dison, 2005 ) is aligned with our thinking: metacognitive reflection begins with metacognition and then is furthered by cycles of reflection that bring awareness to factors such as emotions and context.

We conducted this TIR to offer some conceptual gardening (Veen & Croix, 2023 ) by constructing a lucid conceptualization of metacognitive reflection. To answer our research question—What is metacognitive reflection?—we argue that a productive conceptualization of metacognitive reflection is one that holistically captures elements of metacognition, reflection, and the accompanying emotions involved in that work. While variability and contradiction are rife, we argue that there is a productive way forward, but it does require taking a stance to align with a subset of authors working in this area. Therefore, in keeping with the work of Wald ( 2015 ), Chick et al. ( 2009 ), Hall and Higgins ( 2005 ), Granville and Dison ( 2005 ), and Merkebu et al. ( 2023 ), we propose the following conceptualization:

Metacognitive reflection involves heightened internal observation, awareness, monitoring, and regulation of our own knowledge, experiences, and emotions by questioning and examining cognition and emotional processes to continually refine and enhance our perspectives and decisions while thoughtfully accounting for context.

We offer this conceptualization of the phenomenon to support investigations into metacognitive reflection as a distinct phenomenon. We hope that this definition can help clarify how metacognitive reflection is foundationally different from reflection and metacognition and so should not be conflated with either term. We acknowledge that we offer a limited synthesis of the definitions and theories of metacognitive reflection; however, we note that this description is limited because, unfortunately, there is much variability in the limited literature available for integration. Therefore, we suggest that the definition we offer could serve as a foundation for future inquiry that would work to build a robust theory of metacognitive reflection. Or, if future research shows that this definition does not hold up, then we offer it as a starting point for either supporting or eschewing. Whether the definition holds in the future remains to be seen, but we hope it contributes to a clearer set of future research agendas.

As Dewey remarked, “In natural growth each successive stage of activity prepares unconsciously, but thoroughly, the conditions for the manifestation of the next stage” (Dewey, 1933 ). We contend that engaging in metacognition is a necessary first step from which the individual can then engage in deeper levels of reflective meaning-making. Thus, metacognitive reflection is employed to characterize the monitoring and regulation aspects of metacognition and the subsequent meaning-making process of reflection, which also involves astute awareness of emotions and context. In other words, we propose that metacognitive reflection begins with the process of metacognition and then is enhanced with cycles of reflection that bring additional considerations into the process. This, therefore, is how metacognitive reflection brings a shift in perspective—i.e., metacognition is thinking about thinking which is then augmented with the work of reflection.

We acknowledge that our position on metacognitive reflection is most aligned with the work of many others who frame reflection as a larger and more holistic construct than metacognition and as linked to transformative learning, self-regulated learning, spiritual intelligence, faith, higher-level awareness, transcendence, moral consciousness, reflexivity, and beyond (Baumgartner, 2001 ; Bhaskar, 2013 ; Bleakley, 1999 ; Branson, 2007 ; Drigas et al., 2022a ; Hetzner et al., 2011 ; Korthagen & Vasalos, 2009 ; Merkebu et al., 2023 ; Mezirow, 1994 ; Nys, 2002 ; Smith, 2011 ; Travis & Shear, 2010 ). Our position is most aligned with others who have posited that the work of metacognition is foundational to self-reflective monitoring because “without being able to at least describe the contents of one’s own mind, a reflection on those contents may not occur” (Demick & Andreoletti, 2012 ). Therefore, we propose that metacognition is the primary mechanism which then positions the individual to be able to engage in reflection. If we can imagine that metacognitive reflection involves an ascension of reflective activity, then we can conceive that researchers are desiring to capture what happens when metacognition is enhanced by the multitude of considerations that are part of the work of reflection (Merkebu et al., 2023 ).

Theoretical and practical implications

Based on prior theory and research, as well as the findings of this TIR, we suggest that when we cross the thresholds from cognition to metacognition to reflection, we move into a space where we can effectively regulate our thoughts and emotions (Merkebu et al., 2023 ). In this space, individuals can engage in deeper levels of reflection, enabling the development of awareness and novel insight. From this standpoint, metacognitive reflection is a whole-person perspective that considers both metacognitive regulation and wider reflective perspectives. An important consequence of this proposition is that it promotes a directionality to the work of metacognitive reflection: this work starts from basic metacognition and moves to more in-depth and intensive transformational levels. This orientation recognizes the need for authentic growth and transformation (Drigas et al., 2022a ; Grossman, 2009 ).

Given the new definition and conceptualization we offer, what are the implications for medical education? As Mieke Bal pointed out, the value of concepts is in what we do with them and how we can work with them. Metacognitive reflection can support valuable reconceptualization for lifelong learning. However, our analysis suggests that it is not appropriate for the literature to continue to conflate the terms metacognition, reflection, and metacognitive reflection. They are distinct concepts. Further, given their distinctions, our research findings suggest that medical educators should teach learners to engage in these processes at different times. For instance, perhaps it is most reasonable, at the undergraduate medical education level, to ask students to engage in metacognition. We propose that metacognition is the first step in learning how to question the knowledge we hold; it requires the learner to be aware of the ways in which we are thinking and how we are using our thinking to productively engage in learning. Then, students move through the medical education continuum and develop more advanced knowledge, skills, and attitudes, including adding reflection to their metacognition work. Perhaps when learners are at the end of their undergraduate training or entering graduate training, they can be expected to develop the ability to sustain metacognitive development and ascend from one layer to another via the complexities and nuances involved in reflection (Drigas et al., 2022a ). In this way, medical learners progress towards an end goal of being capable of engaging in metacognitive reflection: first they develop robust metacognitive skills and then they develop rich reflection skills that they harness to enhance their metacognition. In this way, the journey to becoming lifelong learners follows the journey of mastering metacognitive reflection skills.

This conceptualization of metacognitive reflection also offers medical educators the opportunity to identify why some medical learners might struggle to develop this important skill and how to engage in remediation efforts. Do learners struggle with foundational metacognition skills? If so, they might be guided to consider the differences between their metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive experiences. The educator can then help them develop skills to plan, regulate, monitor, and control their cognitive processes. However, if learners have sound metacognition skills, remediation can focus on their ability to engage in high-quality or productive reflection (El-Dib, 2007 ). Remediation effort would focus on helping learners develop the ability to make meaning of experiences from within situated contexts, continually expanding to consider a wider range of possibilities through spirals of reflection.

Finally, the role of emotion is different in metacognition, reflection, and metacognitive reflection. As argued by Shapiro, much of medical education’s hidden curriculum has encouraged students “to separate and distance themselves” from their own emotions and those of others. However, as the analysis in this paper suggests, if we understand when emotions come into play in metacognitive reflection—and indeed, in both metacognition and reflection—we can thoughtfully bring emotions back into each individual’s consideration at appropriate times. For instance, we contend that metacognition is a first step for engaging in reflective meaning-making. Therefore, metacognitive awareness of emotions is part of the very initial workings of these processes. Instead of divorcing emotions from this work, we argue that emotions are part of the primary processes, which individuals need to productively reappraise and regulate in order to embark on reflective meaning-making.

Limitations and future directions

This review addresses a gap in the metacognitive reflection literature; however, as our synthesis efforts revealed, the theory of metacognitive reflection and the processes by which it works have not been the focus of much research attention. The lack of literature in this area poses a limitation in our review. Important questions remain to be addressed: How do metacognitive processes carry over to impact engagement in reflection? Ford and Yore ( 2012 ) have cautioned that these constructs are converging “as the move toward constructivism has necessitated critical considerations of knowledge about thinking.” Should we conceptualize metacognitive reflection from an objectivist, subjectivist, or pragmatist epistemology? What would be the implications of choosing one orientation over another? Future research could address these gaps by studying what constitutes metacognitive reflection to develop robust theory. Furthermore, if the conceptualization of metacognitive reflection as we have described it is embraced by the community, research will be needed to construct instruments that measure individuals’ competency in this area, since it is a foundational competency required of practicing physicians.

This TIR offers a synthesis of the literature addressing metacognitive reflection. We offer a new definition of metacognitive reflection and highlight its salient features. We suggest a conceptualization that places metacognition as the first and foundational aspect of metacognitive reflection, from which individuals can then engage in iterative cycles of reflection. Our knowledge synthesis provides a coherent conceptualization of metacognitive reflection and proposes how this construct can be leveraged to serve medical education. Additionally, this review highlights that metacognition and reflection are not synonyms. They are related but distinct constructs that should not be used interchangeably.

Alt, D., & Raichel, N. (2020). Reflective journaling and metacognitive awareness: Insights from a longitudinal study in higher education. Reflective Practice, 21 (2), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2020.1716708

Article   Google Scholar  

Asadzandi, S., Mojtahedzadeh, R., & Mohammadi, A. (2022). What are the factors that enhance metacognitive skills in nursing students? A systematic review. Iranian Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research, 27 (6), 475.

Azevedo, R. (2020). Reflections on the field of metacognition: Issues, challenges, and opportunities. Metacognition and Learning, 15 (2), 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09231-x

Bal, M. (2009). Working with concepts. European Journal of English Studies, 13 (1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825570802708121

Barley, M. (2012). Learning from reflective practice and metacognition—An anaesthetist’s perspective. Reflective Practice, 13 (2), 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2012.657792

Bartimote-Aufflick, K., Brew, A., & Ainley, M. (2010). University teachers engaged in critical self-regulation: How may they influence their students? In A. Efklides, P. Misailidi, (Eds.), Trends and Prospects in Metacognition Research. SpringerLink (pp. 427–444).

Battistone, M. J., Kemeyou, L., & Varpio, L. (2023). The integrative review: A researcher’s guide. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 15 , 449–452.

Baumgartner, L. M. (2001). An update on transformational learning. New Direction for Adult and Continuing Education, 2001 (89), 15. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.4

Becker, F., Wirzberger, M., Pammer-Schindler, V., Srinivas, S., & Lieder, F. (2023) Systematic metacognitive reflection helps people discover far-sighted decision strategies: A process-tracing experiment. Judgment Decision Making. In press. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/DUQYJ

Bhaskar, R. (2013). A realist theory of science . Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203090732

Book   Google Scholar  

Bleakley, A. (1999). From reflective practice to holistic reflexivity. Studies in Higher Education, 24 (3), 315–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079912331379925

Bormotova, L. S. (2010) A qualitative study of metacognitive reflection: The beliefs, attitudes and reflective practices of developing professional educators . Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania; 2010.

Boud, D. (1999). Avoiding the traps: Seeking good practice in the use of self assessment and reflection in professional courses. Social Work Education, 18 (2), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479911220131

Branson, C. (2007). Effects of structured self-reflection on the development of authentic leadership practices among Queensland primary school principals. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 35 (2), 225–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143207075390

Bright, B. (1996). Reflecting on ‘reflective practice.’ Studies in Education of Adults, 28 (2), 162–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/02660830.1996.11730638

Cacciamani, S., Cesareni, D., Martini, F., Ferrini, T., & Fujita, N. (2012). Influence of participation, facilitator styles, and metacognitive reflection on knowledge building in online university courses. Computers and Education, 58 (3), 874–884.

Cale, A. S., Hoffman, L. A., & McNulty, M. A. (2023). Promoting metacognition in an allied health anatomy course. Anatomical Sciences Educations, 16 (3), 473–485.

Candy, P., Harri-Augstein, S., & Thomas, L. (1985). Reflection and the self-organized learner. In D. Boud, R. Keogh, & D. Walker (Eds.), Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. Kogan Page.

Google Scholar  

Chick, N., Karis, T., & Kernahan, C. (2009). Learning from their own learning: How metacognitive and meta-affective reflections enhance learning in race-related courses. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3 (1), n1. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2009.030116

Cloude, E. B., Wiedbusch, M. D., Dever, D. A., Torre, D., & Azevedo, R. (2022). The role of metacognition and self-regulation on clinical reasoning: Leveraging multimodal learning analytics to transform medical education. In M. Giannakos, D. Spikol, D. Di Mitri, K. Sharma, X. Ochoa, & R. Hammad (Eds.), The multimodal learning analytics handbook (pp. 105–129). Springer International Publishing.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Cole, A. L., & Knowles, J. G. (2000). Researching teaching: Exploring teacher development through reflexive inquiry . Allyn and Bacon.

Copeland, W. D., Birmingham, C., de la Cruz, E., & Lewin, B. (1993). The reflective practitioner in teaching: Toward a research agenda. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9 (4), 347–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(93)90002-X

Cornoldi, C. (1998). The impact of metacognitive reflection on cognitive control. In G. Mazzoni & T. O. Nelson (Eds.), Metacognition and cognitive neuropsychology: Monitoring and control processes (pp. 139–159). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cornoldi, C. (2014). The impact of metacognitive reflection on cognitive control. In G. Mazzoni & T. O. Nelson (Eds.), Metacognition and cognitive neuropsychology (pp. 139–160). Psychology Press.

Cui, Y., Wise, A. F., & Allen, K. L. (2019). Developing reflection analytics for health professions education: A multi-dimensional framework to align critical concepts with data features. Computers in Human Behaviour, 100 , 305–324.

Cutrer, W. B., Sullivan, W. M., & Fleming, A. E. (2013). Educational strategies for improving clinical reasoning. Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care, 43 (9), 248–257.

Davis, J. H. (2000). Metacognition and multiplicity: The arts as models and agents. Educational Psychology Review, 12 , 339–359.

De Nys, M. J. (2002). Faith, self-transcendence, and reflection. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 51 (2), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014420229544

Demick, J., & Andreoletti, C. (2012). Handbook of adult development . Springer Science & Business Media.

Desaute, D. (2009). Becoming a thinking thinker: Metacognition, self-reflection, and classroom practice. Teachers College Record, 111 (8), 1997–2020.

Desautel, D. (2009). Becoming a thinking thinker: Metacognition, self-reflection, and classroom practice. Teachers College Record, 111 (8), 1997–2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810911100803

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process . D.C. Heath & Co.

Dimmitt, C., & McCormick, C. B. (2012) Metacognition in education. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, & J. Sweller (Eds.), APA Educational Psychology Handbook, Vol. 1. Theories, Constructs, and Critical Issues . (pp. 157–187). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13273-007

Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008a). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20 (4), 391–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9083-6

Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008b). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review., 20 (4), 391–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9083-6

Drigas, A., Mitsea, E., & Skianis, C. (2022a). Metamemory: Metacognitive strategies for improved memory operations and the role of VR and mobiles. Behavioral Sciencea (basel), 12 (11), 450. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12110450

Drigas, A., Mitsea, E., & Skianis, C. (2022b). Virtual reality and metacognition training techniques for learning disabilities. Sustainability (basel), 14 (16), 10170. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610170

El-Dib, M. A. B. (2007). Levels of reflection in action research. An overview and an assessment tool. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23 (1), 24–35.

Fat’hi, J., & Behzadpour, F. (2011). Beyond method: The rise of reflective teaching. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1 (2), 241–251. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v1n2p241

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34 (10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906

Flavell, J. H., Miller, P. H., & Miller, S. A. (1993). Cognitive development (3rd ed.). Prentice-Hall.

Ford, C. L., & Yore, L. D. (2012) Toward convergence of critical thinking, metacognition, and reflection: Illustrations from natural and social sciences, teacher education, and classroom practice. In A. Zohar, Y. Dori, (eds). Metacognition in Science Education. Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education. (Vol 40). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2132-6_11

Gash, H. (2014). Constructing constructivism. Constructive Foundations, 9 (3), 302–310.

Gillon, S. A., & Radford, S. T. (2012). Zebra in the intensive care unit: A metacognitive reflection on misdiagnosis. Critical Care and Resuscitation, 14 (3), 216–220.

Gonullu, I., & Artar, M. (2014). Metacognition in medical education. Education for Health (abingdon), 27 (2), 225–226. https://doi.org/10.4103/1357-6283.143784

González, J. S., & Ruiz, M. C. S. (2012). The convergence process in European higher education and its historical cultural impact on Spanish clinical nursing training. Nurse Education Today, 32 , 887–891.

Graber, M. L., Kissam, S., Payne, V. L., et al. (2012). Cognitive interventions to reduce diagnostic error: A narrative review. BMJ Quality and Safety, 21 (7), 535–557. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000149

Granville, S., & Dison, L. (2005). Thinking about thinking: Integrating self-reflection into an academic literacy course. Journal of English Academic Purposes, 4 (2), 99–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2004.07.009

Grossman, R. (2009). Structures for facilitating student reflection. College Teaching, 57 (1), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.57.1.15-22

Grushka, K., McLeod, J. H., & Reynolds, R. (2005). Reflecting upon reflection: Theory and practice in one Australian university teacher education program. Reflective Practice, 6 (2), 239–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623940500106187

Hall, I., & Higgins, S. (2005). Primary school students’ perceptions of interactive whiteboards. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21 (2), 102–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00118.x

Hamm, R. M. (2014). Figure and ground in physician misdiagnosis: Metacognition and diagnostic norms. Diagnosis, 1 (1), 29–33.

Hargis, J., & Marotta, S. M. (2011). Using Flip camcorders for active classroom metacognitive reflection. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12 (1), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787410387816

Hargreaves, K. (2016). Reflection in medical education. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 13 (2), 6. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.13.2.6

Hetzner, S., Steiner, C. M., Dimitrova, V., Brna, P., & Conlan, O. Adult self-regulated learning through linking experience in simulated and real world: A holistic approach. In Towards Ubiquitous Learning: 6th European Conference of Technology Enhanced Learning, EC-TEL 2011, Palermo, Italy, September 20–23, 2011. Proceedings . (Vol. 6, pp. 166–180) Springer.

Hodges, B. D. (2015). Sea monsters & whirlpools: Navigating between examination and reflection in medical education. Medical Teacher, 37 (3), 261–266. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.993601

Jalali, A., Sherbino, J., Frank, J., & Sutherland, S. (2015). Social media and medical education: Exploring the potential of Twitter as a learning tool. International Review of Psychiatry, 27 (2), 140–146. https://doi.org/10.3109/09540261.2015.1015502

Killion, J. P., & Todnem, G. R. (1991). A process for personal theory building. Educational Leadership, 48 (6), 14–16.

Kinsella, E. A. (2010). The art of reflective practice in health and social care: Reflections on the legacy of Donald Schön. Reflective Practice, 11 (4), 565–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2010.506260

Korthagen, F., & Vasalos, A. (2009). From reflection to presence and mindfulness: 30 years of developments concerning the concept of reflection in teacher education. In EARLI Conference, Amsterdam, August 2009. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=3524FF1846ACAB38692A0C06A081DA43?doi=10.1.1.628.6365&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Kosior, K., Wall, T., & Ferrero, S. (2019). The role of metacognition in teaching clinical reasoning: Theory to practice. Education in the Health Professions, 2 (2), 108–114.

Kreidler, C. (1998). Introducing english semantics . London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203265574

Kuiper, R. A., & Pesut, D. J. (2004). Promoting cognitive and metacognitive reflective reasoning skills in nursing practice: Self-regulated learning theory. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 45 (4), 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02921.x

Larkin, S. (2009). Metacognition in young children . Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203873373

Larrivee, B., & Cooper, J. M. (2006). An educator’s guide to teacher reflection . Houghton Mifflin.

Lasley, T. J. (1992). Promoting teacher reflection. Journal of Staff Development, 13 (1), 24–29.

Levin, B. B. (1995). Using the case method in teacher education: The role of discussion and experience in teachers’ thinking about cases. Teaching Teacher Education, 11 (1), 63–79.

Lewis, H. (2019). Supporting the development of young children’s metacognition through the use of video-stimulated reflective dialogue. Early Child Development and Care, 189 (11), 1842–1858.

Linsenmeyer, M., & Long, G. (2023). Goal-oriented and habit-oriented reflective models to support professional uientity formation and metacognitive thinking. Medical Science Educator, 33 , 569–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-023-01752-9

Lonie, J. M., & Desai, K. R. (2015a). Using transformative learning theory to develop metacognitive and self-reflective skills in pharmacy students: A primer for pharmacy educators. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching & Learning, 7 (5), 669–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2015.06.002

Lonie, J. M., & Desai, K. R. (2015b). Using transformative learning theory to develop metacognitive and self-reflective skills in pharmacy students: A primer for pharmacy educators. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 7 (5), 669–675.

Lysaker, P. H., Kukla, M., Vohs, J. L., Schnakenberg Martin, A. M., Buck, K. D., & Hasson, O. I. (2019). Metacognition and recovery in schizophrenia: From research to the development of metacognitive reflection and insight therapy. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 10 (1), 2043808718814992.

Makalela, L. (2015). Breaking African language boundaries: Student teachers’ reflections on translanguaging practices. Lang Matters (pretoria), 46 (2), 275–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/10228195.2014.986664

Martinez, M. E. (2006). What is metacognition? Phi Delta Kappan, 87 (9), 696–699. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170608700916

Mason, L., Boldrin, A., & Ariasi, N. (2010). Epistemic metacognition in context: Evaluating and learning online information. Metacognition and Learning, 5 (1), 67–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-009-9048-2

McAdoo, B., & Manwaring, M. (2009). Teaching for implementation: Designing negotiation curricula to maximize long-term learning. Negotiation Journal, 25 (2), 195–215.

McCabe, T. M., & Olimpo, J. T. (2020). Advancing metacognitive practices in experimental design: a suite of worksheet-based activities to promote reflection and discourse in laboratory contexts. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education., 21 (1), 21142. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v21i1.2009

Medina, M. S., Castleberry, A. N., & Persky, A. M. (2017). Strategies for improving learner metacognition in health professional education. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 81 (4), 78.

Merkebu, J., Kitsantas, A., Durning, S. J., & Ma, T. (2023). What is metacognitive reflection? The moderating role of metacognition on emotional regulation and reflection. Frontiers in Education (lausanne), 8 , 1166195. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1166195

Mezirow, J. (1994). Understanding transformation theory. Adult Education Quarterly, 44 (4), 222–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/074171369404400403

Mitchell, R., Regan-Smith, M., Fisher, M. A., Knox, I., & Lambert, D. R. (2009). A new measure of the cognitive, metacognitive, and experiential aspects of residents’ learning. Academic Medicine, 84 (7), 918–926. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181a85609

Molesworth, B. R., Bennett, L., & Kehoe, E. J. (2011). Promoting learning, memory, and transfer in a time-constrained, high hazard environment. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43 (3), 932–938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2010.11.016

Morgan, A. (2007). Using video-stimulated recall to understand young children’s perceptions of learning in classroom settings. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 15 (2), 213–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/13502930701320933

Moshman, D. (1991). Universals, necessities, and social contexts. Educational Psychology Review, 3 (2), 111–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01417922

Nelson, T., & Narens, L. (1994). Why investigate metacognition? In J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about Knowing (pp. 1–25). MIT Press.

Nguyen, Q. D., Fernandez, N., Karsenti, T., & Charlin, B. (2014). What is reflection? A conceptual analysis of major definitions and a proposal of a five-component model. Medical Education, 48 (12), 1176–1189. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12583

O’Loughlin, V. D., & Griffith, L. M. (2020). Developing student metacognition through reflective writing in an upper level undergraduate anatomy course. Anatomical Science Education, 13 (6), 680–693.

Osterman, K. F., & Kottkamp, R. B. (2004). Reflective practice for educators: Professional development to improve student learning . Corwin Press.

Parse, R. R. (2005). Parse’s criteria for evaluation of theory with a comparison of Fawcett’s and Parse’s approaches. Nursing Science Quarterly, 18 (2), 135–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894318405275860

Piaget, J., & Kamii, C. (1978). What is psychology? American Psychologist, 33 (7), 648–652. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.33.7.648

Pressley, M. (2005). Final reflections: Metacognition in literacy learning: Then, now, and in the future . Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pusic, M. V., Hall, E., Billings, H., Branzetti, J., Hopson, L. R., Regan, L., Gisondi, M. A., & Cutrer, W. B. (2022). Educating for adaptive expertise: Case examples along the medical education continuum. Advances Health Science Education, 27 (5), 1383–1400.

Quintana, C., Zhang, M., & Krajcik, J. (2005). A framework for supporting metacognitive aspects of online inquiry through software-based scaffolding. Educational Psychology, 40 (4), 235–244.

Rhem, J. (2013). Using reflection and metacognition to improve student learning: Across the disciplines, across the academy . Stylus Publishing.

Robinson, E. T., Anderson-Harper, H. M., & Kochan, F. K. (2001). Strategies to improve reflective teaching. Journal of Pharmacy Teaching, 8 (4), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1300/J060v08n04_04

Salovich, N. A., & Rapp, D. N. (2021). Misinformed and unaware? Metacognition and the influence of inaccurate information. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 47 (4), 608–624. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000977

Sandars, J. (2009). The use of reflection in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 44. Medical Teacher, 31 (8), 685–695. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590903050374

Sawicki, V., & Wegener, D. T. (2018). Metacognitive reflection as a moderator of attitude strength versus attitude bolstering: Implications for attitude similarity and attraction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44 (5), 638–652. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217744196

Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner . Jossey-Bass.

Schraw, G. (2001) Promoting general metacognitive awareness. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in Learning and Instruction: Theory, Research and Practice . (pp. 3–16). Kluwer Academic. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2243-8_1

Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19 (4), 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033

Schunk, D. H. (2008). Metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning: Research recommendations. Educational Psychology Review, 20 (4), 463–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9086-3

Scoresby, J., & Shelton, B. E. (2014). Reflective redo from the point of error: Implications for after action review. Simulation and Gaming, 45 (4–5), 666–696. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878114549426

Seifert, K. A. H. (2007). The impact of a metacognitive reflection component in a problem-based learning unit . Texas A&M University.

Seppanen, M. (2022). The quality of argumentation and metacognitive reflection in engineering co-design. European Journal of Engineering Education, 48 (1), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2022.2054314

Shapiro, S. B., & Reiff, J. (1993). A framework for reflective inquiry on practice: Beyond intuition and experience. Psychological Reports, 73 (3 Suppl), 1379–1394. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1993.73.3f.1379

Siddiqui, G. K., Lodhi, H., & Ghazanfar, K. (2020). Can we boost the metacognitive awareness of prospective teachers through reflective journals? Global Social Science Review, 5 (2), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.31703/gssr.2020(V-II).18

Siddiqui, S., & Dubey, R. (2018). Metacognition in the context of education: An overview. International Journal of Research in Economics and Social Sciences, 8 (3), 481–488.

Smith, E. (2011). Teaching critical reflection. Teaching in Higher Education, 16 (2), 211–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2010.515022

So, S. H. W., Bennett-Levy, J., Perry, H., Wood, D. H., & Wong, C. W. (2018). The self-reflective writing scale (SRWS): A new measure to assess self-reflection following self-experiential cognitive behaviour therapy training. Reflective Practice, 19 (4), 505–521.

Tarricone, P. (2011). The taxonomy of metacognition . London: Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203830529

Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4 (3), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283

Travis, F., & Shear, J. (2010). Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic self-transcending: Categories to organize meditations from Vedic, Buddhist and Chinese traditions. Conscious Cognition, 19 (4), 1110–1118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2010.01.007

Veen, M., & de la Croix, A. (2017). The swamplands of reflection: Using conversation analysis to reveal the architecture of group reflection sessions. Medical Education, 51 (3), 324–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13154

Veen, M., & de la Croix, A. (2023). How to grow a professional identity: Philosophical gardening in the field of medical education. Perspect Med Educ., 12 (1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.5334/pme.367

Veen, M., Skelton, J., & de la Croix, A. (2020). Knowledge, skills and beetles: Respecting the privacy of private experiences in medical education. Perspectives on Medical Education, 9 (2), 111–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40037-020-00565-5

Veen, M., & van der Tuin, I. (2021). When I say… travelling concepts. Medical Education, 55 (2), 146–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14400

Veenman, M. V., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition Learn., 1 (1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0

Verplanken, B., Friborg, O., Wang, C. E., Trafimow, D., & Woolf, K. (2007). Mental habits: Metacognitive reflection on negative self-thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92 (3), 526–541. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.526

Waghmare, L. S., Srivastava, T. K., & Srivastava, S. (2016). Portfolios for a reflective approach in learning. National Journal of Physiology Pharmacy and Pharmacology, 6 (3), 263.

Wald, H. S. (2015). Refining a definition of reflection for the being as well as doing the work of a physician. Medical Teacher, 37 (7), 696–699. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2015.1029897

Walters, L., Laurence, C. O., Dollard, J., Elliott, T., & Eley, D. S. (2015). Exploring resilience in rural GP registrars–implications for training. BMC Medical Education, 15 (1), 1–8.

Winkel, A. F., Yingling, S., Jones, A. A., & Nicholson, J. (2017). Reflection as a learning tool in graduate medical education: A systematic review. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 9 (4), 430–439. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-16-00500.1

Winters, F. I., Greene, J. A., & Costich, C. M. (2008). Self-regulation of learning within computer-based learning environments: A critical analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 20 (4), 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9080-9

Wynn, C. T., Sr., Ray, H., & Liu, L. (2019). The relationship between metacognitive reflection, PBL, and postformal thinking among first-year learning community students. Learning Communities: Research & Practice., 7 (2), 3.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Anne de la Croix for her contribution to the development of the conceptual framework.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS), Center for Health Professions Education, Department of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland, USA

Jerusalem Merkebu

Department of General Practice, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Department of Family Medicine, McMaster Education Research, Innovation, and Theory (MERIT), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Shera Hosseini

Perelman School of Medicine, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Lara Varpio

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

JM full development of narrative and manuscript. LV refining narrative and discussions while taking lead on methods, analysis, and interpretation. MV contributed to the conceptual development, narrative, and discussion refinement. SH contributed to data screening, extraction, and helped with manuscript preparation. All authors contributed to the development and refinement of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jerusalem Merkebu .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Disclaimer The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policy of the US Government, Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, Uniformed Services University, or the Henry M. Jackson Foundation, the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Merkebu, J., Veen, M., Hosseini, S. et al. The case for metacognitive reflection: a theory integrative review with implications for medical education. Adv in Health Sci Educ 29 , 1481–1500 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-023-10310-2

Download citation

Received : 02 August 2023

Accepted : 30 December 2023

Published : 12 February 2024

Issue Date : September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-023-10310-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Medical education
• Metacognitive reflection
• Metacognition
• Theory integrative review
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

The Global Metacognition Institute

Educational resources that boost metacognition & nurture self-regulated learning in schools!

Metacognitive Reflection Essays: A Powerful Activity for Metacognition in the Classroom

Student reflection essay writing activities are a straightforward way of improving academic performance. By engaging in reflection, students can deepen their understanding of their own learning processes, identify areas for improvement, and make meaningful adjustments to their strategies. This, in turn, can lead to improved academic performance, increased metacognition, and enhanced self-regulated learning.

The process of reflection involves planning, monitoring, evaluating, and regulating one's learning. When students engage in this process through reflective essay writing, they become more aware of their own strengths and weaknesses and are better able to identify areas where they need to focus their efforts. This can lead to increased motivation and engagement, as well as better academic outcomes.

In addition, reflective essay writing can promote metacognition, which is the ability to think about one's own thinking. When students engage in reflective writing, they are forced to think deeply about their learning processes and identify the strategies that work best for them. This can help them become more self-aware and better able to regulate their own learning.

Furthermore, reflective essay writing can promote self-regulated learning, which is the ability to take control of one's own learning. When students engage in reflective writing, they are able to identify their own learning goals and strategies and make adjustments as needed. This can lead to more effective learning and better academic outcomes.

To make the most of reflective essay writing activities, teachers can incorporate them into Dedicated Improvement & Reflection Time (DIRT) sessions. During these sessions, students are given time to reflect on their own learning and make adjustments as needed. Teachers can provide prompts or guidelines to help students structure their reflections, and can also offer feedback and support as needed.

In conclusion, reflective essay writing activities can be a powerful tool for improving student attainment, promoting metacognition, and boosting self-regulated learning. By engaging in the process of reflection, students become more self-aware and better able to identify areas for improvement in their learning. This leads to increased motivation and engagement, as well as better academic outcomes. Teachers can support this process by incorporating reflective writing into DIRT sessions and providing guidance and feedback to their students.

We've created a useful resource to help structure and guide metacognitive reflection essay writing - Metacognitive Reflection Essay Writing Toolkit ! This metacognition teaching resource serves two primary functions:

To teach students how to use the metacognitive cycle (planning, monitoring, evaluating and regulating) in relation to essay-writing: developing essay-writing skills

To use essay-writing tasks as a way to encourage metacognitive reflection and help students gain metacognitive knowledge: developing metacognitive and self-regulated learning skills

The learning sessions guide students through the essay writing process and dedicate time to planning, monitoring, evaluating and regulating the essay writing process. Twelve metacognitive/ self-regulated learning reflection topic options are provided with hints as to what students might want to include in their essays. The topics are:

Building On My Strengths & Weaknesses in This Subject

Effective Revision & Exam Preparation Strategies

How To Learn More During Lessons

How My Behaviour Impacts My Learning & My Rate of Progress

How Do My Emotions, Moods & Attitudes Impact My Learning?

Metacognition, Self-Regulation & Independent Learning in This Subject

What Could I Do Differently In Order to Maximise Learning?

How To Boost My Learning Power

The Ideal State of Mind for Learning & How I Can Cultivate It

My Obstacles to Learning & How I Plan To Overcome Them

Factors That Influence My Ability to Learn and Remember Learning

What Approach to Learning Works Best For Me

Essay topics 1-6 are can be used by teachers of any subject to foster metacognition and lead students towards metacognitive knowledge their particular school subject whilst essay topics 6-12 are general metacognitive reflection rubrics.

Our objective is to promote greater levels of learner autonomy in students in collaboration with educators, in addition to promoting metacognition and self-regulated learning. To achieve this, our essay-writing sessions feature instructions that guide students in developing their own assessment criteria, which they will use to evaluate their work at the end of each session. This approach aligns closely with the planning stage of the metacognitive cycle and encourages students to consider task requirements thoroughly before starting their work.

Recent Posts

Metacognition Activities & Strategies: The Ultimate Guide

Enhancing Essay Writing with Metacognition, Enhancing Metacognition with Essay Writing

Metacognitive Reflection Essay Writing - Using Essay Tasks to Build Metacognitive Knowledge

Thanks for subscribing!

Subscribe to our newsletter...

Join us today and download our entire suite of over fifty teaching resources for metacognition & self-regulated learning!

Your membership plan will allow you to download our entire range of teaching resources ( view here ) to learn more and to register click here . Department & Whole-School Plans include access to in-house teaching resources. Whole-School Plans also grant all of your school's teachers access to our online teacher-training course focused on metacognition and self-regulated learning.