About

The International Group on Metacognition (GIM) brings together researchers from universities in the Americas and Europe around a shared question: how we know, regulate, and become aware of our own cognitive activity. We carry out joint projects across countries, support the training of doctoral students, and share instruments for assessing metacognition.

  • 2019Year founded
  • 20Researchers
  • 12Countries
Diana Marcela Montoya Londoño and Antonio P. Gutierrez de Blume, founders of the group
The group was founded in May 2019 by Antonio P. Gutierrez de Blume (Georgia Southern University, United States) and Diana Marcela Montoya Londoño (Universidad de Caldas – Universidad de Manizales, Colombia).

Our mission

The International Group on Metacognition exists to conduct collaborative research. As an international academic network, it works along two lines: metacognition, self-regulated learning, and executive functions across the lifespan; and the cognitive sciences.

Its purpose is for research collaborations to rest on human relationships built on trust, transparency, and the democratization of knowledge. The group’s scientific output grows out of partnerships between universities in different countries, represented by its members.

We are particularly committed to giving visibility to scientific work published in Spanish, while also moving toward publications in English, Portuguese, and French.

What we mean by metacognition

Metacognition is understood as knowledge and regulation of one’s own cognitive activity (Flavell, 1979, 1987; Brown, 1987; Schraw & Sperling Dennison, 1994). Since the construct was first proposed, it has been taken to mean any attempt to monitor and oversee one’s own cognitive processes (Flavell, 1987).

More recently, the term has been used to refer to the kind of cognition concerned with developing a person’s capacity for agency over their own mental activity, consciously and deliberately. In this sense, metacognition has been described as reflected in the knowledge, regulation, and awareness that people establish over their own cognitive processes (Flavell, 1987; Gutierrez & Schraw, 2015; Kuhn, 2000; Tarricone, 2011).

Our goals

  • Carry out cross-cultural research projects.
  • Lead the measurement and standardization of instruments using innovative assessment approaches.
  • Contribute to the planning and development of interventions in the group’s fields of study.
  • Strengthen scientific publishing through special issues.
  • Take part in, and lead, scientific events for the dissemination of science.
  • Participate in strategic partnerships for the training of graduate students.
  • Give students and thesis writers access to research outputs that support their work.

How we work

Independence

The group is not affiliated with any institution or government, is non-profit, and does not depend on funding from any public or private body. This independence gives us the freedom to decide what we research and with whom, and it reflects a conviction: that our work should contribute to the democratization of science.

Trust

The group’s collaborations rest on mutual understanding and respect. We recognize the credentials and academic track record of those who work with us, but we give equal weight to commitment to the group, a vocation for lifelong learning, and honesty in our dealings. We work together because we trust one another and because we believe our work gives something back to society.

What we research

The group’s active research lines include teacher metacognition, metawriting, metamotivation, executive functions, self-regulated learning, and social metacognition.

Future lines of interest include the study of metacognition and executive functions in everyday contexts across the lifespan, and the design of applications to assess metacognition and intervene in it.

Explore the group

References

  1. Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 65–116). Lawrence Erlbaum.
  2. Bol, L., & Hacker, D. J. (2012). Calibration research: Where do we go from here? Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00229
  3. Flavell, J. (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
  4. Flavell, J. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 21–29). Lawrence Erlbaum.
  5. Gutierrez, A., & Schraw, G. (2015). Effects of strategy training and incentives on students' performance, confidence, and calibration. Journal of Experimental Education, 83(3), 386–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2014.907230
  6. Hemdan Mohamed, A. (2012). The relationship between metacognition and self-regulation in young children. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 477–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.436
  7. Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(5), 178–181.
  8. Panadero, E., & Alonso-Tapia, J. (2014). How do students self-regulate? Review of Zimmerman's cyclical model of self-regulated learning. Anales de Psicología, 30(2), 450–462.
  9. Schraw, G., & Sperling Dennison, R. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033
  10. Tarricone, P. (2011). The taxonomy of metacognition. Psychology Press.