p-sig. (exact)
TOT_PRE, PENCRISAL pre-test; RD_PRE, Deductive reasoning pre-test; RI_PRE, Inductive reasoning pre-test; RP_PRE, Practical reasoning pre-test; TD_PRE, Decision making pre-test; SP_PRE, Problem solving pre-test; TOT_POST, PENCRISAL post-test; RD_ POST, Deductive reasoning post-test; RI_ POST, Inductive reasoning post-test; RP_ POST, Practical reasoning post-test; TD_ POST, Decision making post-test; SP_ POST, Problem solving post-test; Min, minimum, Max, maximum, Asym, asymmetry; and Kurt, kurtosis.
Description of metacognition measurement (MAI).
Variables | Min. | Max. | Media | Asym. | Kurt. | K-S p-sig (exact) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TOT_MAI_PRE | 89 | 145 | 233 | 192.13 | 16.636 | −0.071 | 0.275 | 0.557 |
Decla_PRE | 89 | 22 | 37 | 30.58 | 3.391 | −0.594 | −0.152 | 0.055 |
Proce_PRE | 89 | 9 | 19 | 14.52 | 2.018 | −0.560 | 0.372 | 0.004 |
Condi_PRE | 89 | 8 | 23 | 18.04 | 3.003 | −0.775 | 0.853 | 0.013 |
CONO_PRE | 89 | 44 | 77 | 63.15 | 6.343 | −0.384 | 0.044 | 0.445 |
Plani_PRE | 89 | 10 | 31 | 24.35 | 4.073 | −0.827 | 0.988 | 0.008 |
Orga_PRE | 89 | 26 | 48 | 38.20 | 4.085 | −0.307 | 0.331 | 0.022 |
Moni_PRE | 89 | 15 | 35 | 25.24 | 3.760 | −0.436 | 0.190 | 0.005 |
Depu_PRE | 89 | 14 | 25 | 20.71 | 2.144 | −0.509 | 0.310 | 0.004 |
Eva_PRE | 89 | 12 | 28 | 20.49 | 3.310 | −0.178 | −0.044 | 0.176 |
REGU_PRE | 89 | 97 | 160 | 128.99 | 12.489 | −0.070 | 0.043 | 0.780 |
OT_MAI_POST | 89 | 138 | 250 | 197.65 | 17.276 | −0.179 | 0.969 | 0.495 |
Decla_POST | 89 | 23 | 39 | 31.21 | 3.492 | −0.407 | 0.305 | 0.020 |
Proce_POST | 89 | 8 | 20 | 15.24 | 2.116 | −0.723 | 0.882 | 0.001 |
Condi_POST | 89 | 0 | 24 | 18.85 | 2.874 | −0.743 | 0.490 | 0.029 |
CONO_ POST | 89 | 44 | 82 | 65.30 | 6.639 | −0.610 | 1.014 | 0.153 |
Plani_ POST | 89 | 12 | 33 | 25.51 | 3.659 | −0.539 | 0.994 | 0.107 |
Orga_ POST | 89 | 27 | 48 | 39.40 | 4.150 | −0.411 | 0.053 | 0.325 |
Moni_ POST | 89 | 17 | 35 | 26.44 | 3.296 | −0.277 | 0.421 | 0.143 |
Depu_ POST | 89 | 15 | 24 | 20.40 | 2.245 | −0.214 | −0.531 | 0.023 |
Eva_ POST | 89 | 12 | 29 | 20.60 | 3.680 | −0.083 | −0.098 | 0.121 |
REGU_PRE | 89 | 94 | 168 | 132.35 | 12.973 | −0.227 | 0.165 | 0.397 |
TOT_MAI_PRE, MAI pre-test; Decla_PRE, Declarative pre-test; Proce_PRE, Procedural pre-test; Condi_PRE, Conditional pre-test; CONO_PRE, Knowledge pre-test; Plani_PRE, Planning pre-test; Orga_PRE, Organization pre-test; Moni_PRE, Monitoring pre-test; Depu_PRE, Troubleshooting pre-test; Eva_PRE, Evaluation pre-test; REGU_PRE, Regulation pre-test; TOT_MAI_POST, MAI post-test; Decla_ POST, Declarative post-test; Proce_ POST, Procedural post-test; Condi_ POST, Conditional post-test; CONO_ POST, Knowledge post-test; Plani_ POST, Planning post-test; Orga_POST, Organization post-test; Moni_ POST, Monitoring post-test; Depu_ POST, Troubleshooting post-test; Eva_ POST, Evaluation post-test; and REGU_ POST, Regulation post-test;
As we see in the description of all study variables, the evidence is that the majority of them adequately fit the normal model, although some present significant deviations which can be explained by sample size.
Next, to verify whether there were significant differences in the metacognition variable based on measurements before and after the intervention, we contrasted medians for samples related with Student’s t -test (see Table 3 ).
Comparison of the METAKNOWLEDGE variable as a function of PRE-POST measurements.
Variables | Mean Difference (CI 95%) | value | gl. | p-sig. (bilateral) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TOT_MAI | Pre. | 89 | 192.13 | 16.636 | −8.152_−2.882 | −4.161 | 88 | 0.000 |
Post. | 89 | 197.65 | 17.276 | |||||
Decla | Pre. | 89 | 30.58 | 3.391 | −1.235_−0.023 | −2.063 | 88 | 0.042 |
Post. | 89 | 31.21 | 3.492 | |||||
Proce | Pre. | 89 | 14.52 | 2.018 | −1.210_−0.228 | −2.911 | 88 | 0.005 |
Post. | 89 | 15.24 | 2.116 | |||||
Condi. | Pre. | 89 | 18.04 | 3.003 | −1.416_−0.202 | −2.65 | 88 | 0.010 |
Post. | 89 | 18.85 | 2.874 | |||||
CONO | Pre. | 89 | 63.15 | 6.343 | −3.289_−1.025 | −3.787 | 88 | 0.000 |
Post. | 89 | 65.3 | 6.639 | |||||
Plan | Pre. | 89 | 24.35 | 4.073 | −1.742_−0.573 | −3.934 | 88 | 0.000 |
Post. | 89 | 25.51 | 3.659 | |||||
Orga | Pre. | 89 | 38.2 | 4.085 | −2.054_−0.350 | −2.803 | 88 | 0.006 |
Post. | 89 | 39.4 | 4.15 | |||||
Moni | Pre. | 89 | 25.24 | 3.76 | −1.924_−0.480 | −3.308 | 88 | 0.001 |
Post. | 89 | 26.44 | 3.296 | |||||
TS | Pre. | 89 | 20.71 | 2.144 | −0.159_−0.766 | 1.303 | 88 | 0.196 |
Post. | 89 | 20.4 | 2.245 | |||||
Eval | Pre. | 89 | 20.49 | 3.31 | −0.815_−0.613 | −0.282 | 88 | 0.779 |
Post. | 89 | 20.6 | 3.68 | |||||
REGU | Pre. | 89 | 128.99 | 12.489 | −5.364_−1.356 | −3.331 | 88 | 0.001 |
Post. | 89 | 132.35 | 12.973 |
The results show that there are significant differences in the metaknowledge scale total and in most of its dimensions, where all the post medians for both the scale overall and for the three dimensions of the knowledge factor (declarative, procedural, and conditional) are higher than the pre-medians. However, in the cognition regulation dimension, there are only significant differences in the total and in the planning, organization, and monitoring dimensions. The medians are also greater in the post-test than the pre-test. However, the troubleshooting and evaluation dimensions do not differ significantly after intervention.
Finally, for critical thinking skills, the results show significant differences in the scale total and in the five factors regarding the measurement time, where performance medians rise after intervention (see Table 4 ).
Comparison of the CRITICAL THINKING variable as a function of PRE-POST measurements.
Variables | N | M | SD | Student’s -test | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean difference (CI 95%) | value | gl. | p-sig. (bilateral) | |||||
TOT | Pre. | 89 | 25.146 | 5.436 | −8.720_−6.246 | −12.023 | 88 | 0.000 |
Post. | 89 | 32.629 | 5.763 | |||||
RD | Pre. | 89 | 2.978 | 3.391 | −2.298_−1.364 | −7.794 | 88 | 0.000 |
Post. | 89 | 4.809 | 3.492 | |||||
RI | Pre. | 89 | 4.213 | 1.627 | −1.608_−0.706 | −5.097 | 88 | 0.000 |
Post. | 89 | 5.371 | 1.547 | |||||
RP | Pre. | 89 | 18.04 | 2.248 | −1.416_−0.202 | −10.027 | 88 | 0.000 |
Post. | 89 | 18.85 | 2.295 | |||||
TD | Pre. | 89 | 63.15 | 1.796 | −3.083_−2.063 | −6.54 | 88 | 0.000 |
Post. | 89 | 65.3 | 1.748 | |||||
SP | Pre. | 89 | 24.35 | 2.058 | −1.135_−0.213 | −2.906 | 88 | 0.005 |
Post. | 89 | 25.51 | 1.812 |
These results show how metacognition improves due to CT intervention, as well as how critical thinking also improves with metacognitive intervention and CT skills intervention. Thus, it improves how people think about thinking as well as about the results achieved, since metacognition supports decision-making and final evaluation about proper strategies to solve problems.
The general aim of our study was to know whether a critical thinking intervention program can also influence metacognitive processes. We know that our teaching methodology improves cross-sectional skills in argumentation, explanation, decision-making, and problem-solving, but we do not know if this intervention also directly or indirectly influences metacognition. In our study, we sought to shed light on this little-known point. If we bear in mind the centrality of how we think about thinking for our cognitive machinery to function properly and reach the best results possible in the problems we face, it is hard to understand the lack of attention given to this theme in other research. Our study aimed to remedy this deficiency somewhat.
As said in the introduction, metacognition has to do with consciousness, planning, and regulation of our activities. These mechanisms, as understood by many authors, have a blended cognitive and non-cognitive nature, which is a conceptual imprecision; what is known, though, is the enormous influence they exert on fundamental thinking processes. However, there is a large knowledge gap about the factors which make metacognition itself improve. This second research lacuna is what we have partly aimed to shrink here as well with this study. Our guide has been the idea of knowing how to improve metacognition from a teaching initiative and from the improvement of fundamental critical thinking skills.
Our study has shed light in both directions, albeit in a modest way, since its design does not allow us to unequivocally discern some of the results obtained. However, we believe that the data provide relevant information to know more about existing relations between skills and metacognition, something which has seen little contrast. These results allow us to better describe these relations, guiding the design of future studies which can better discern their roles. Our data have shown that this relation is bidirectional, so that metacognition improves thinking skills and vice versa. It remains to establish a sequence of independent factors to avoid this confusion, something which the present study has aided with to be able to design future research in this area.
As the results show, total differences in almost all metaknowledge dimensions are higher after intervention; specifically, we see how in the knowledge factor the declarative, procedural, and conditional dimensions improve in post-measurements. This improvement moves in the direction we predicted. However, the cognitive regulation dimension only shows differences in the total, and in the planning, organization, and regulation dimensions. We can see how the declarative knowledge dimensions are more sensitive than the procedural ones to change, and within the latter, the dimensions over which we have more control are also more sensitive. With troubleshooting and evaluation, no changes are seen after intervention. We may interpret this lack of effects as being due to how everything referring to evaluating results is highly determined by calibration capacity, which is influenced by personality factors not considered in our study. Regarding critical thinking, we found differences in all its dimensions, with higher scores following intervention. We can tentatively state that this improved performance can be influenced not only by interventions, but also by the metacognitive improvement observed, although our study was incapable of separating these two factors, and merely established their relation.
As we know, when people think about thinking they can always increase their critical thinking performance. Being conscious of the mechanisms used in problem-solving and decision-making always contributes to improving their execution. However, we need to go into other topics to identify the specific determinants of these effects. Does performance improve because skills are metacognitively benefited? If so, how? Is it only the levels of consciousness which aid in regulating and planning execution, or do other factors also have to participate? What level of thinking skills can be beneficial for metacognition? At what skill level does this metacognitive change happen? And finally, we know that teaching is always metacognitive to the extent that it helps us know how to proceed with sufficient clarity, but does performance level modify consciousness or regulation level of our action? Do bad results paralyze metacognitive activity while good ones stimulate it? Ultimately, all of these open questions are the future implications which our current study has suggested. We believe them to be exciting and necessary challenges, which must be faced sooner rather than later. Finally, we cannot forget the implications derived from specific metacognitive instruction, as presented at the start of this study. An intervention of this type should also help us partially answer the aforementioned questions, as we cannot obviate what can be modified or changed by direct metacognition instruction.
Ethics statement.
Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
SR and CS contributed to the conception and design of the study. SR organized the database, performed the statistical analysis, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. SR, CS, and CO wrote sections of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
This study was partly financed by the Project FONDECYT no. 11220056 ANID-Chile.
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.
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.
Llama, AR and chatbots
Orion ar glasses prototype, ai chatbots and avatars, the meta horizon ecosystem.
Meta has just announced that its annual Meta Connect conference will take place in its usual venue at Menlo Park between September 25-26, 2024. The event, now in its third year, is expected to showcase Meta's latest advancements in AI , VR, and the expanding vision of the Metaverse.
It has been a big. year for Meta in the AI space, ramping up launches of its own dedicated MetaAI chatbot , new versions of its Llama family of large language models and integration of its various generative AI models into Instagram, the Quest and WhatsApp.
More of this is expected at Meta Connect. Registrations for the event are already open online, with options to attend both in public at Menlo Park and online via Facebook and Horizon Worlds.
But with several major hardware and software announcements competing for time during this year’s event, you’re probably wondering what’s really on the cards. Read on for a list of potential developments that we can expect from Meta Connect, based on various rumors, leaks, and press releases circulating online.
Meta Connect is Meta's flagship technology conference, bringing together developers, creators, and tech enthusiasts to explore the company's vision for the future. Meta Connect 2024 will be a hybrid event, with an in-person component at Meta's headquarters in Menlo Park as well as a virtual livestream accessible worldwide through Facebook and Horizon Worlds.
As usual, registration for Connect 2024 is available free of charge on Meta’s official website . Once signed up on the website, you will receive regular updates and announcements leading up to the actual event on September 25 and 26.
When it’s time to attend, you can follow along with the conference using one of the below options:
Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips.
Meta Connect 2024 comes at a pivotal time as Meta doubles down on AI while facing increased competition in the XR space from rivals like Apple.
One of the most anticipated announcements at Meta Connect 2024 is the potential unveiling of the Meta Quest 3S, a more affordable version of the Quest 3 VR headset launched last year by Meta. A recent store listing leak hinted at the existence of this "lite" model even though Meta has not officially confirmed it.
The Quest 3S could help boost adoption of Meta's VR ecosystem by lowering the entry price point while still offering immersive VR experiences. Key specs and features remain to be seen, but given the lower price tag, you can expect some tradeoffs compared to the higher-end Quest 3.
This is also likely to come complete with Llama 3.1, Meta's powerful new family of artificial intelligence models offering deeper AI assistant integration and vision features similar to those we've seen in the Ray-Ban smart glasses.
Meta Connect 2024 may give us our first real glimpse at Meta's long-awaited augmented reality glasses, codenamed Project Orion. Unlike the Ray-Ban Stories smart glasses which mainly focused on audio and camera functionality, the Orion AR glasses are expected to offer true visual AR experiences with digital overlays integrated into the real-world view.
Meta has been developing the Orion glasses for nearly a decade, representing a significant leap in AR technology. While a finished consumer product is still likely a few years away, Meta may demo an early prototype to showcase its progress and get creators started building AR apps for the platform.
Again, this is a technology made possible thanks to integration with artificial intelligence models like Llama 3.1, bringing rapid processing of data to the device. It will also utilize vision models from Meta to identify real-world objects and places.
Expect a major focus on artificial intelligence at Meta Connect 2024, as Meta doubles down on AI across its products and platforms. Meta previewed some of its AI advancements earlier this year, like an AI assistant for WhatsApp, Instagram and Quest, as well as AI tools for image editing and avatar creation.
At the event, Meta will likely dive deeper into its conversational AI technology. It would be particularly exciting to see a deeper dive into AI Studio, Meta’s latest platform for creating no-code AI chatbots without writing a line of code.
We will also see a focus on the Llama family of models, and while it is an outside chance this could include the first look at a multimodal version of Llama or the opening up of Meta's image, video and audio generation models.
Of course, Meta Connect would not be complete without significant updates on the company's progress in building the metaverse. Expect Mark Zuckerberg's keynote to lay out Meta's vision for the metaverse over the next year and beyond.
We'll likely get a status update on Horizon Worlds, Meta's social VR platform, which aims to integrate avatars, inventory, and identity across different virtual experiences. Meta may announce new tools and standards to help developers create more interoperable metaverse content.
Ritoban Mukherjee is a freelance journalist from West Bengal, India whose work on cloud storage, web hosting, and a range of other topics has been published on Tom's Guide, TechRadar, Creative Bloq, IT Pro, Gizmodo, Medium, and Mental Floss.
How to use ChatGPT to analyze PDFs for free
You can outsmart airline pricing with Google Gemini — here's how
Cosori TurboBlaze Air Fryer review: Superb results, easy to clean
IMAGES
COMMENTS
Metacognition is one's ability to use prior knowledge to plan a strategy for approaching a learning task, take necessary steps to problem solve, reflect on and evaluate results, and modify one's approach as needed. It helps learners choose the right cognitive tool for the task and plays a critical role in successful learning.
Metacognitive skills are the soft skills you use to monitor and control your learning and problem-solving processes, or your thinking about thinking. This self-understanding is known as metacognition theory, a term that the American developmental psychologist John H. Flavell coined in the 1970s. It might sound abstract, but these skills are ...
or solving a math problem, and they can be individual-ly identified and measured. In contrast, metacognitive. strategies are used to ensure that an overarching learning goal is being or has been reached. Examples of metacognitive activities include planning how to approach a learning task, using appropriate skills and
Metacognition is, put simply, thinking about one's thinking. More precisely, it refers to the processes used to plan, monitor, and assess one's understanding and performance. Metacognition includes a critical awareness of a) one's thinking and learning and b) oneself as a thinker and learner. Initially studied for its development in young ...
Metacognition, sometimes described as "thinking about your own thinking," refers to knowledge about one's own thoughts and cognitive processes as well as the cognitive regulation involved in directing one's learning. Engaging in metacognition allows learners to recognize gaps in their knowledge or difficulty in acquiring new information ...
Metacognition is the practice of being aware of one's own thinking. Some scholars refer to it as "thinking about thinking.". Fogarty and Pete give a great everyday example of metacognition ...
Metacognitive Strategies (How People Learn) Metacognitive strategies are techniques to help students develop an awareness of their thinking processes as they learn. These techniques help students focus with greater intention, reflect on their existing knowledge versus information they still need to learn, recognize errors in their thinking, and ...
Types of Metacognitive Strategies. Metacognitive strategies that help students plan, monitor, and modify their mathematical problem-solving include self-instruction and self-monitoring. Not only are these strategies relatively easy for students to implement, but they also help students to become better independent problem solvers.
Metacognition refers to thinking about one's thinking and is a skill students can use as part of a broader collection of skills known as self-regulated learning. Metacognitive strategies for learning include planning and goal setting, monitoring, and reflecting on learning. Students can be instructed in the use of metacognitive strategies.
These submissions document the use of a wide array of problem-solving responses to document crime, disorder and a host of other issues police are tasked with addressing, highlighting the utility of the POP model for a wide variety of problem types (see also, Scott, 2000; Scott & Clarke, 2020). As our review is focused on impacts on crime and ...
The Meta model is a model for changing our maps of the world. It provides a number of problem solving strategies. We cause many of our problems by our unconscious rule governed behavior. We have problems not because the world isn't rich enough, but because our maps aren't. Alfred Korzybski's work demonstrated that we don't operate on ...
Problem-solvers choose one or more approaches to problem solving based on their skills and attitudes as these interact with the problem or problems at hand. The complex of processes of choosing one or more approaches, controlling them, and coordinating the various approaches is what we call meta-intelligence (a concept introduced inSternbergn.d.b).
The metacognition in creative problem-solving (MCPS) scale was introduced to self-assess metacognitive skills during the creative problem-solving process.. The MCPS scale is designed to capture the engagement in planning, monitoring, regulation, and evaluation in creative problem-solving, being more suitable for problem-solving research than other instruments focusing on learning-specific ...
Collaborative problem-solving has been widely embraced in the classroom instruction of critical thinking, which is regarded as the core of curriculum reform based on key competencies in the field ...
Problem-solving involves not only cognitive strategies but also metacognitive skills and it is more than just implementing strategies to solve the problems. In fact, metacognitive skills are related to problem-solving (Ader, 2013; Mayer, 1998), and students who have these skills can decide whether a problem is sensible, ...
National Center for Special Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. ... Xin Y. P. (2012). A follow-up meta-analysis for word-problem-solving interventions for students with mathematics difficulties. Journal of ... The Conceptual Model-based Problem Solving she pioneered is included in National Council ...
Metacognition is thinking about how you think and learn. The key to metacognition is asking yourself self-reflective questions, which are powerful because they allow us to take inventory of where we currently are (thinking about what we already know), how we learn (what is working and what is not), and where we want to be (accurately gauging if ...
Appeal Facebook's decision to disable your group or remove content, and more about Group Quality. Why you can't post, comment or participate in a Facebook group. Why you can't access your Facebook group. Become an admin of a Facebook group without any admins. Why you can't find your Facebook group.
1. Introduction. Metacognition is a multi-faceted phenomenon that involves both the awareness and regulation of one's cognitions (Flavell 1979).Past research has shown that metacognitive regulation, or the skills learners use to manage their cognitions, is positively related to effective problem-solving (Berardi-Coletta et al. 1995), transfer (Lin and Lehman 1999), and self-regulated ...
Metacognition comprises both the ability to be aware of one's cognitive processes (metacognitive knowledge) and to regulate them (metacognitive control). Research in educational sciences has amassed a large body of evidence on the importance of metacognition in learning and academic achievement. More recently, metacognition has been studied ...
Problem-solvers choose one or more approaches to problem solving based on their skills and attitudes as these interact with the problem or problems at hand. The complex of processes of choosing one or more approaches, controlling them, and coordinating the various approaches is what we call meta-intelligence (a concept introduced in Sternberg n ...
Meta Problem Solving Center, Torreon, Mexico. 974 likes · 60 were here. Hair Salon
The Opioid Intervention Court is a new and developing problem-solving court model. Evaluations have been conducted that show the effectiveness of this approach. Medication for Opioid Use Disorder Medication for Addiction Treatment (MAT) is an evidence-based approach to effectively treat Opioid Use Disorder. Role of Recovery Peer Advocates
Abstract. More and more often, we hear that higher education should foment critical thinking. The new skills focus for university teaching grants a central role to critical thinking in new study plans; however, using these skills well requires a certain degree of conscientiousness and its regulation. Metacognition therefore plays a crucial role ...
Meta Connect is the Facebook-makers developer event and this year artificial intelligence will be front-and-center.
Meta has released an alternative to CrowdTangle, called the Meta Content Library. But access to it is limited to academic researchers and nonprofits, which excludes most news organizations.