Metacognition and cognitive monitoring¶
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911.
Cited by¶
3 citations across 3 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Epistemic Humility
- The structural insight is that epistemic humility is not a static trait but a practiced capacity: the discipline of noticing the distance between your actual warrant and your confidence, and maintaining that gap as a salient feature of reasoning rather than erasing it, the metacognitive monitoring capacity Flavell (1979) first formalized.
This sourceIntroduces 'metacognition' as cognition about cognitive phenomena and the monitoring/regulation of one's own cognitive processes. SUPPORTS marker 213 (metacognitive monitoring capacity Flavell first formalized).
- The structural insight is that epistemic humility is not a static trait but a practiced capacity: the discipline of noticing the distance between your actual warrant and your confidence, and maintaining that gap as a salient feature of reasoning rather than erasing it, the metacognitive monitoring capacity Flavell (1979) first formalized.
- Meta-Symbolic Reflection
- Modern linguistics (Flavell 1979
This sourceFoundational paper introducing metacognition as the monitoring and regulation of one's own cognitive processes; theoretical basis for treating epistemic humility as a practiced metacognitive discipline.
- Modern linguistics (Flavell 1979
- Metacognition
- Revisable. The metamemory awareness and metacognitive knowledge and signals are revisable through experience, feedback, and explicit instruction.
This sourceFoundational paper introducing metacognition as the monitoring and regulation of one's own cognitive processes; theoretical basis for treating epistemic humility as a practiced metacognitive discipline.
- Revisable. The metamemory awareness and metacognitive knowledge and signals are revisable through experience, feedback, and explicit instruction.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. Neither this nor any other of the 3 citations of this work carries a recorded support check.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:5c54cec4f9fd · see in the full table