Training for Metacognition in Simulated Environments

  • Anand Tharanathan
  • Paul Derby
  • Hari Thiruvengada


Metacognition has been recognized as an important mechanism in the learning process within the cognitive psychology and education literatures. However, due to its focus on relatively static domains, there are several constraints in applying the concept to real-world domains that are highly complex and dynamic in nature. For example, being able to self-regulate the selection of our skills and strategies is essential to maintain a high level of human performance in dynamic environments. Therefore it is important to identify effective training mechanisms to improve metacognition while performing in real-world contexts. An effective platform for cognitive training is human-in-the-loop simulations or virtual environment-training. Hence, in this chapter, we have briefly described the manner in which metacognition is currently defined in the literature and the limitations in its current direction. After identifying the limitations, we provide a definition for the concept of metacognition that may increase its applicability to dynamic domains. Furthermore, we have listed guidelines for developing effective metacognitive training methods in virtual environments as well as an example of the application of these guidelines.


Virtual Environment Metacognitive Knowledge Virtual Learning Environment Metacognitive Process Metacognitive Monitoring 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Butler DL, Winne PH (1995) Feedback and self-regulated learning: a theoretical synthesis. Rev Educ Res 65:245–281Google Scholar
  2. Cavanaugh JC, Perlmutter M (1982) Metamemory: a critical examination. Child Dev 53:11–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen M, Freeman J, Wolf S (1996) Metarecognition in time-stressed decision making: recognizing, critiquing and correcting. Hum Factors 38:206–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dunlosky J, Hertzog C, Kennedy MRF, Thiede KW (2005) The self-monitoring approach for effective learning. Int J Cogn Technol 10:4–11Google Scholar
  5. Dunlosky BJ, Serra MJ, Baker JMC (2007) Metamemory. In: Durso FT, Nickerson RS, Dumais ST, Lewandowsky S, Perfect T (eds) Handbook of applied cognition, 2nd edn. Wiley, West SussexGoogle Scholar
  6. Finn B, Metcalfe J (2007) The role of memory for past test in the underconfidence with practice effect. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cog 33:238–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fiore SM, Cuevas HM, Scielzo S, Salas E (2002) Training individuals for distributed teams: problem solving assessment for distributed mission research. Comput Hum Behav 18:125–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Flavell JH (1979) Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. Am Psychol 34:906–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ford KJ, Smith EM, Weissbein DA, Gully SM, Salas E (1998) Relationships of goal orientation metacognitive ability and practice strategies with learning outcomes and transfer. J Appl Psychol 83:218–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garris R, Ahlers R, Driskell JE (2002) Games, motivation and learning: a research and practice model. Simul Gaming 33:441–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hertzog C, Dixon RA, Hultsch DF (1990) Relationships between metamemory, memory predictions, and memory task performance in adults. Psychol Aging 5:215–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Karpicke JD (2009) Metacognitive control and strategy selection: deciding to practice retrieval during learning. J Exp Psy Gen 138:469–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kelly A, Carroll M, Mazzoni G (2002) Metamemory and reality monitoring. Appl Cogn Psychol 16:407–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Koriat A (1997) Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: a cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. J Exp Psychol Gen 126:349–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Maki RH (1998) Text predictions over text material. In: Hacker DJ, Dunlosky J, Graesser AC (eds) Metacognition in educational theory and practice. Erlbaum, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  16. Maki RH, Shields M, Wheeler AE, Zacchilli TL (2005) Individual differences in absolute and relative metacomprehension accuracy. J Educ Psychol 97:723–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mayer RE (1998) Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solving. Instr Sci 26:49–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Meshkati N, Hancock PA, Rahimi M, Suzanne MD (1995) Techniques in mental workload assessment. In: Wilson EN, Corlett JR (eds) Evaluation of human work: a practical ergonomics methodology, 2nd edn. Taylor and Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Nelson TO, Narens L (1990) Metamemory: a theoretical framework and new findings. In: Bower GH (ed) The psychology of learning and motivation. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  20. Nicol DJ, Macfarlane-Dick D (2006) Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and sevel principles of good feedback practice. Stud High Educ 31:199–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nietfeld JL, Hoffman KL, McQuiggan SW, Lester J (2008) Self-regulated learning in a narrative entered learning environment. Annual Meeting of Ed-Media, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  22. Osman ME, Hannafin MJ (1992) Metacognition research and theory: analysis and implications for instructional design. Educ Tech Res Dev 40:83–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pintrich PR, Wolters C, Baxter G (2000) Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning. In: Schraw G, Impara JC (eds) Issues in the measurement of metacognition. Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, Lincoln NEGoogle Scholar
  24. Rawson KA, Dunlosky J (2002) Are performance predictions for text based on ease of processing? J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cog 28:69–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schraw G (1998) Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instr Sci 26:113–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Serra MJ (2006) Is metacomprehension for multimedia presentations different than for text alone? Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Kent State University, Kent, OHGoogle Scholar
  27. Serra MJ, Dunlosky J (2005) Does retrieval fluency contribute to the underconfidence-with-practice effect? J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 21:1258–1266Google Scholar
  28. Shines DP (2002) The name of the game is training: leveraging army gaming to improve training. Armor 450:22–24Google Scholar
  29. Tobias S, Everson H (2002) Knowing what you know and what you don’t: further research on metacognitive knowledge monitoring. College Board Report No. 2002-3. College Board, NYGoogle Scholar
  30. Thiede KW (1999) The importance of accurate monitoring and effective self-regulation during multitrial learning. Psychon B Rev 6:662–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Veenman MVJ, Prins FJ, Elshout JJ (2002) Initial inductive learning in a complex computer simulated environment: the role of metacognitive skills and intellectual ability. Comput Hum Behav 18:327–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. von Bertalanffy L (1968) General systems theory: foundations development and applications. George Braziller, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Wagner DA, Spratt JE, Gal I, Paris S (1989) Reading and believing: Beliefs attributions and reading achievement among Moroccan school children. J Educ Psychol 81:283–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zimmerman BJ (1995) Self-regulation involves more than metacognition: a social cognitive perspective. Educ Psychol 30:217–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zimmerman BJ (2000) Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive perspective. In: Boekaerts M, Pintrich P, Zeidner M (eds) Handbook of self-regulation. Academic Press, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  36. Zimmerman BJ (2002) Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theor Pract 41:64–70Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anand Tharanathan
    • 1
  • Paul Derby
    • 1
  • Hari Thiruvengada
    • 1
  1. 1.Honeywell ACS LabsGolden ValleyUSA

Personalised recommendations