This presentation aims to reveal the impact of pedagogical strategies that promote both individual agency and social interaction on the development of metacognitive monitoring and control in children aged 5–7 within natural learning contexts. Recent studies have actively examined the specificity of metacognitive monitoring and control in children under experimental conditions (Bryce & Whitebread, 2012; Robson, 2010, 2016; Nilles, 2017; Dörr & Perels, 2019; Escolano-Pérez et al., 2019). However, there remains a lack of research exploring how children's metacognitive monitoring and control processes develop in authentic educational environments. Additionally, insufficient attention has been given to understanding how these processes manifest in social interactions—when children collaborate, communicate, and pursue common goals. Theoretical frameworks emphasize the value of such learning (Schraw & Moshman, 1995; Whitebread et al., 2007; Hadwin & Oshige, 2011; Chatzipanteli et al., 2014), and studies involving older children (aged 7–12) provide empirical support for this notion (Branigan, 2019; Zachariou & Whitebread, 2019). Nevertheless, there is still a significant gap in scientific data regarding the expression of metacognitive monitoring and control processes in social interactions among children aged 5–7.

Given these gaps in the literature, an important question arises: which type of learning environment is more conducive to the development of metacognitive monitoring and control? Is it an environment where a child operates individually, engaging in the solitary construction of their metacognitive processes? Or is it a social learning context where interpersonal interactions foster an individually influenced or shared construction of metacognition? Recent scholarly discussions have increasingly focused on insights into how metacognitive monitoring and control emerge through both individual and shared processes within children's social interactions.

Metacognitive monitoring involves observing and reflecting on one's cognitive processes, often revealed by verbalizing understanding of cognition and learning. It provides feedback on cognitive states relative to specific goals (Perfect & Schwartz, 2002). Metacognitive control refers to the decisions, both conscious and unconscious, made based on monitoring outcomes, influencing observable behaviors (Perfect & Schwartz, 2002).Understanding these cognitive dimensions is essential when examining the pedagogical strategies that can foster their development in young children.

One of the key approaches in fostering metacognitive development involves the deliberate structuring of learning contexts.

Pedagogical strategy of creating learning contexts (that promote interaction-based experiential learning). The educator designs small-group activities by strategically arranging materials and structuring choice-based scenarios, allowing children to select their peers for collaboration. Instead of providing direct instructions, the educator offers a broad framework that encourages children to generate ideas, anticipate outcomes, and engage in collaborative problem-solving. Through thought-provoking questions, children are guided to determine their course of action, seek solutions, and explore resources independently. Formative feedback is provided to support their learning process.

Pedagogical strategy of encouraging individual experiential learning. The educator creates structured conditions for independent engagement by providing diverse materials, individualized workstations, and open-ended activity descriptions. This approach enables children to generate personal ideas, anticipate outcomes, and develop unique problem-solving strategies. Through targeted questioning, the educator fosters cognitive exploration, guiding children in constructing their own understanding and overcoming challenges. Additionally, personalized support is provided by directing children to relevant information sources and offering individualized feedback to enhance their learning process.

Pedagogical strategy of direct supervision. The educator provides explicit instructions, outlines expected outcomes, and assigns individual workstations with necessary materials. Demonstrating tools and procedural steps, the educator ensures a structured sequence of actions. Guidance, recommendations, and individual feedback support children in overcoming challenges.

Research Approach and Data Collection Methods: A quantitative approach was applied in this study, with a random selection used to create the research sample. The sample consisted of 383 children, 42.26% (n = 181) boys and 52.74% (n = 202) girls. Data Collection Method: To assess the impact of different pedagogical strategies on metacognitive monitoring and control in children aged 5–7, an observation method was chosen. Data Collection Process: Once pedagogical strategies were identified, the children's natural learning processes were observed through video recordings. The observation took place after obtaining consent from all participants in the educational process, including the institution’s administrators, parents (or guardians), children, and group educators. Observations and recordings were made only in those groups where all parents gave consent. Activities were filmed using two video devices: a video camera for general group shots and mobile phones for smaller group activities. When children worked in smaller groups, mobile phones were placed with them to capture their activities. For individual activities, a general group recording was made while mobile phones recorded the actions of individual children. Each video recording lasted 30 minutes. Research Context: The study was conducted in a natural, familiar environment— a preschool attended by the children. The daily educational process and the interactions between children and educators were filmed, capturing the emergent educational situations and signs of children’s metacognitive monitoring and control. Data Processing: All recorded material was transcribed, and metacognitive monitoring and control signs in children’s activities were identified, coded, counted, and categorized into variable groups. Data Analysis Methods: Statistical analysis of the research data was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 27.0. The signs of children’s metacognitive monitoring and control were coded and entered into the SPSS program. For the quantitative data analysis, descriptive statistical analysis was conducted to examine the expression of metacognitive monitoring and control in the natural educational process. The frequency of occurrences of metacognitive monitoring and control processes provoked by different pedagogical strategies used by educators was calculated, along with the average number of occurrences per child. To determine whether the pedagogical strategies significantly differed in terms of the average number of metacognitive monitoring and control cases expressed in children aged 5–7, a Student’s T-test was used for independent samples. Independent samples effect sizes were also calculated to determine the impact of pedagogical strategies on children’s metacognitive monitoring and control.

Using the Student’s T-test, the averages of metacognitive monitoring and control provoked by different pedagogical strategies were compared by examining strategy pairs. The results showed that the pedagogical strategy of creating learning contexts (promoting experiential learning in interactions) statistically significantly increased the number of metacognitive monitoring cases in children (mean = 8.27) compared to the strategy of individual experiential learning (mean = 7.29). Independent samples effect sizes were calculated. Cohen’s d = 3.123, indicating a strong effect. The pedagogical strategy of creating learning contexts (promoting experiential learning in interactions) also statistically significantly increased the number of metacognitive control cases in children (mean = 6.30) compared to the strategy of promoting individual experiential learning (mean = 3.74). Independent samples effect sizes were calculated. Cohen’s d = 2.462, indicating a strong effect. The pedagogical strategy of creating learning contexts (promoting experiential learning in interactions) statistically significantly increased the number of metacognitive monitoring cases in children (mean = 8.27) compared to the direct guidance pedagogical strategy (mean = 3.87). Independent samples effect sizes were calculated. Cohen’s d = 2.909, indicating a strong effect. The pedagogical strategy of creating learning contexts (promoting experiential learning in interactions) also statistically significantly increased the number of metacognitive control cases in children (mean = 6.30) compared to the direct guidance pedagogical strategy (mean = 3.45). Independent samples effect sizes were calculated. Cohen’s d = 2.468, indicating a strong effect. Thus, the pedagogical strategy of creating learning contexts (promoting experiential learning in interactions) and the direct guidance pedagogical strategy are not equivalent in terms of metacognitive monitoring and control.

Branigan, H. E. (2019). Exploring Metacognition in Primary School Classrooms. Doctoral dissertation, University of Stirling, UK. Bryce, D., Whitebread, D. (2012). The Development of Metacognitive Skills: Evidence from Observational Analysis of Young Children’s Behavior during Problem-Solving. Metacognition and Learning, 7(3), 19–217. Chatzipanteli, A., Grammatikopoulos, V., Gregoriadis, A. (2014). Development and Evaluation of Metacognition in Early Childhood Education. Early Child Development and Care, 184(8), 1223–1232. Dörr, L., Perels, F. (2019). Improving Metacognitive Abilities as an Important Prerequisite for Self-Regulated Learning in Preschool Children. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 11(5), 449–459. Escolano-Pérez, E., Herrero-Nivela, M. L. ir Anguera, M. T. (2019). Preschool Metacognitive Skill Assessment in Order to Promote Educational Sensitive Response from Mixed-Methods Approach: Complementarity of Data Analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1298. Hadwin, A., & Oshige, M. (2011). Self-Regulation, Coregulation, and Socially Shared Regulation: Exploring Perspectives of Social in Self-Regulated Learning theory. Teachers College Record, 113(2), 240–264. Kim, R. Y, Park, M. S., Moore, T. J. & Varma, S. (2013). Multiple Levels of Metacognition and Their Elicitation Through Complex Problem-Solving Tasks. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32(3), 377–396. https://doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2013.04.002 Nilles, D. S. (2017). Young Children Motivationʼs Articulations of Their Metacognitive Processing During Play. Dissertation, University of North Dakota. Perfect, T. J., & Schwartz, B. L. (Eds.). (2002). Applied Metacognition. Cambridge University Press. Robson, S. (2010). Self-Regulation and Metacognition in Young Childrenʼs Self-Initiated Play and Reflective Dialogue. International Journal of Early Years Education, 18(3), 227–241. Robson, S. (2016). Self-Regulation and Metacognition in Young Children: Does it Matter if Adults are Present or not? British Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 185–206. https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/berj.3205 Salonen, P., Vauras, M., & Efklides, A. (2005). Social Interaction – What Can it Tell Us about Metacognition and Coregulation in Learning? European Psychologist, 10(3), 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.10.3.199 Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive Theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 351–371. Schwartz, D.L., Chase, C., Chin, D.B., Oppezzo, & Kwong, M.H., Okita, S., Biswas, G., Roscoe, R., Jeong, H., & Wagster, J. (2009). Interactive Metacognition: Monitoring and Regulating a Teachable Agent. Stanford University. Whitebread, D., Bingham, S., Grau, V., Pasternak, D. ir Sangster, C. (2007). Development of Metacognition and Self Regulated Learning in Young Children: Role of Collaborative and Peer-Assisted Learning. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 3, 433–455. Zachariou, A., & Whitebread, D. (2019). Developmental Differences in Young Childrenʼs Self-Regulation. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 62, 282–293. https://doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2019.02.002