Working Memory and Metacognition

A special issue of Journal of Intelligence (ISSN 2079-3200).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (28 February 2023) | Viewed by 6653

Special Issue Editor


E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Psychological Sciences, College of Arts and Sciences, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44303, USA
Interests: working memory; metacognition; implicit learning

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Working memory and metacognition are two constructs that receive a great deal of attention in the cognitive literature, yet research regarding the relationship between these two constructs is relatively new. Nelson and Narens (1990) proposed a framework to describe the relationship between metacognition and cognition. Cognition (the object level in the framework) refers to ongoing cognitive processes and the meta level contains a model of an individual’s understanding of the task at hand and the cognitive processing involved. The relationship between the two levels is based on the activities of monitoring and control. Monitoring processes function to evaluate the efficacy of task-level cognition, whereas control processes serve to allocate cognitive resources (e.g., attention and working memory). Metacognitive monitoring and control are also thought to be working memory demanding processes.

Working memory is defined in several ways (see Cowan, 2017). Two definitions germane to the relationship between working memory and metacognition come from Cowan (2017): “…the ensemble of components of the mind that hold a limited amount of information temporarily in a heightened state of availability for use in ongoing information processing.” And the maintenance of goals and sub-goals for ongoing processing while inhibiting distractions (see also Engle, 2002; Unsworth & Engle, 2007). From these definitions, it is inferred that metacognitive monitoring requires working memory to preserve task-relevant information and metacognitive control requires attentional resources from working memory.

This Special Issue aims to capture current theoretical and methodological developments in this field, including but not limited to the following themes:

  • How are individual differences in working memory and metacognition related?
  • Does training to improve metacognition transfer to working memory and vice-versa?
  • What, if any, common processes, resources, or mechanisms do the two share?

If your paper does not address any of the proposed themes, but you believe it is aligned with the main concepts proposed in this Special Issue, please feel free to submit your manuscript.

References

  • Cowan, Nelson. The many faces of working memory and short-term storage. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 24, no. 4 (2017): 1158–1170.
  • Engle, Randall W. Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science 11, no. 1 (2002): 19–23.
  • Nelson, T. O., and Narens, L. Metamemory: A theoretical framework and some new findings. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation. Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, (1990): Vol. 26, pp. 125–173.
  • Unsworth, Nash, and Randall W. Engle. The nature of individual differences in working memory capacity: active maintenance in primary memory and controlled search from secondary memory. Psychological Review 114, no. 1 (2007): 104.

Please note that the “Planned Papers” Section on the webpage does not imply that these papers will eventually be accepted; all manuscripts will be subject to the journal’s normal and rigorous peer review process.

Dr. Christopher A. Was
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Journal of Intelligence is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2600 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • working memory
  • metacognition
  • metacognitive control
  • metacognitive monitoring
  • working memory demands

Published Papers (2 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

18 pages, 792 KiB  
Article
Metacognitive Cues, Working Memory, and Math Anxiety: The Regulated Attention in Mathematical Problem Solving (RAMPS) Framework
by Daniel A. Scheibe, Christopher A. Was, John Dunlosky and Clarissa A. Thompson
J. Intell. 2023, 11(6), 117; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11060117 - 11 Jun 2023
Viewed by 2417
Abstract
Mathematical problem solving is a process involving metacognitive (e.g., judging progress), cognitive (e.g., working memory), and affective (e.g., math anxiety) factors. Recent research encourages researchers who study math cognition to consider the role that the interaction between metacognition and math anxiety plays in [...] Read more.
Mathematical problem solving is a process involving metacognitive (e.g., judging progress), cognitive (e.g., working memory), and affective (e.g., math anxiety) factors. Recent research encourages researchers who study math cognition to consider the role that the interaction between metacognition and math anxiety plays in mathematical problem solving. Problem solvers can make many metacognitive judgments during a math problem, ranging from global judgments such as, “Do I care to solve this problem?” to minor cue-based judgments such as, “Is my current strategy successful in making progress toward the correct solution?” Metacognitive monitoring can hinder accurate mathematical problem solving when the monitoring is task-irrelevant; however, task-relevant metacognitive experiences can lead to helpful control decisions in mathematical problem solving such as checking work, considering plausibility of an answer, and considering alternate strategies. Worry and negative thoughts (i.e., math anxiety) can both interfere with the accuracy of metacognitive experiences as cues in mathematical problem solving and lead to avoidance of metacognitive control decisions that could otherwise improve performance. The current paper briefly reviews and incorporates prior literature with current qualitative reports (n = 673) to establish a novel framework of regulated attention in mathematical problem solving (RAMPS). Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Working Memory and Metacognition)
Show Figures

Figure 1

19 pages, 1350 KiB  
Article
The Relationship between Executive Functions, Working Memory, and Intelligence in Kindergarten Children
by Ebru Ger and Claudia M. Roebers
J. Intell. 2023, 11(4), 64; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11040064 - 29 Mar 2023
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 3475
Abstract
Executive functions (EF), working memory (WM), and intelligence are closely associated, but distinct constructs. What underlies the associations between these constructs, especially in childhood, is not well understood. In this pre-registered study, along with the traditional aggregate accuracy and RT-based measures of EF, [...] Read more.
Executive functions (EF), working memory (WM), and intelligence are closely associated, but distinct constructs. What underlies the associations between these constructs, especially in childhood, is not well understood. In this pre-registered study, along with the traditional aggregate accuracy and RT-based measures of EF, we investigated post-error slowing (PES) in EF as a manifestation of metacognitive processes (i.e., monitoring and cognitive control) in relation to WM and intelligence. Thereby, we aimed to elucidate whether these metacognitive processes may be one underlying component to explain the associations between these constructs. We tested kindergarten children (Mage = 6.4 years, SDage = 0.3) in an EF, WM (verbal and visuospatial), and fluid (non-verbal) intelligence task. We found significant associations of mainly the inhibition component of EF with fluid intelligence and verbal WM, and between verbal WM and intelligence. No significant associations emerged between the PES in EF and intelligence or WM. These results suggest that in the kindergarten age, inhibition rather than monitoring and cognitive control might be the underlying component that explains the associations between EF, WM, and intelligence. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Working Memory and Metacognition)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop