Plenary Presentation given at ASPE Annual Conference 2026 by Pedro Cartaxo Cintra, CCRN, MSc, PhD(c)
In this plenary session, Pedro Cartaxo Cintra explored the concept of metacognition – the ability to observe, evaluate, and regulate our own thinking – and discussed its implications for meaningful, lasting learning.
The first part of the presentation focused on distinguishing metacognition from thinking. Metacognition, broadly, is thinking about thinking. John Flavel, one of the early pioneers in the field, describes metacognition as not only knowing how you think, but knowing when your thinking is failing, and knowing how to adjust it.
Thinking is not the same as learning, but learning requires a cognitive process; thinking can lead to learning. Therefore, metacognition can affect how we learn.
Metacognition involves having situational awareness of our thoughts. First, we have the perception of thought (what am I thinking?), followed by comprehension (why am I thinking this?), and finally, projection (if I continue thinking this way, where will it lead me?). In this way, metacognition can allow us to notice a mental shortcut before it misleads us.
Pedro also talked about metacognition as it relates to liminality and the sometimes-uncomfortable process of learning. Liminality refers to the threshold state where we are no longer who we were but not yet who we will become. Metacognition can help us recognize that the liminal state is part of the learning process and therefore help us navigate liminal spaces without escaping them prematurely.
So, how can we help learners begin to think about thinking?
- Make thinking visible: How did you arrive at that conclusion?
- Ask process questions: How did you decide?
- Normalize uncertainty. Recognize doubts.
- Use prediction: What challenges do you anticipate?
- Use calibration: How confident are you?
Thinking creates decisions. If metacognition can improve our thinking, then it follows that metacognition can also improve the quality of our decisions.
Of course, any conversation about thinking must acknowledge the growing influence of AI in our lives. If AI "thinks" for us, who will monitor the thinking? Pedro asserts that AI is unable to monitor its own thinking. Therefore, it falls on humans to examine, question, and refine the thinking process.
Throughout the presentation, Pedro held a conversation with a computerized feminine voice. Early in the presentation, a question was asked about whether the voice was AI or pre-recorded. Pedro revealed at the end of the session that the pre-recorded voice represented his own thoughts, thinking about thinking about thinking, or meta-metacognition.
Pedro concluded the presentation with the suggestion that the future of education may not depend on teaching people what to think but helping them learn how to think.
As I reflect on this session, I'm reminded of concepts I've encountered in meditation, specifically the idea of the inner witness or inner observer, the part of ourselves who sits outside the constant stream of thoughts. Is metacognition related to this inner witness? And if meditation can help us take a breath and respond thoughtfully instead of simply reacting, perhaps metacognition, which allows us to observe our own thinking patterns, can be a tool to help interrupt bias or assumptions in our thoughts. I left this session energized and ready to do more thinking about thinking.
Read the full article on the [ASPE Blog] [https://www.aspeducators.org/aspe-e-news-blog].
