Metacognition plays a central role in students’ learning and academic development, as it enables learners to plan, monitor, and evaluate their thinking while engaging with complex tasks (Ohtani & Hisasaka, 2018). In primary school, developing metacognitive strategies is particularly important, as children are still learning how to approach tasks independently and reflect on their own understanding. Supporting metacognitive development at this stage has been shown to be associated with improved learning outcomes and more effective problem-solving in mathematics (Fyfe et al., 2022).

Early research conceptualized metacognition primarily as an individual mental process involving the monitoring and regulation of one’s own thinking (Flavell, 1979; Veenman et al., 2006). In mathematics education, this perspective guided studies that focused on how learners regulate their thinking while solving mathematical problems. Researchers examined processes such as planning, monitoring, and evaluating when students chose operations, checked intermediate results, or judged the reasonableness of their solutions (Garofalo & Lester, 1985; Schoenfeld, 1985; Schneider & Artelt, 2010). Within this perspective, metacognition was mainly examined as an internal cognitive process. It was often assessed through self-reports, think-aloud techniques or performance measures that focused on how learners approached and evaluated the given task (Desoete, 2007; Veenman et al., 2006).

From this perspective, social interaction and instructional context were generally treated as supportive factors for individual regulation rather than as integral components of metacognitive process. Although these approaches contributed to showing positive relations between metacognition and mathematics achievement (Schoenfeld, 1992; Donker et al., 2014), they tended to assume that metacognitive regulation occurs independently of social and instructional contexts.

More recent sociocultural and situative perspectives have challenged this view by emphasizing that thinking and learning are mainly shaped through social interaction (Çini et al., 2023; Iiskala et al., 2021; Zepeda et al., 2019). From this perspective, metacognition is understood not only as an individual act of self-regulation, but also as a socially shared and co-regulated process. Studies on collaborative learning have shown that learners often regulate their understanding collectively by negotiating meaning, coordinating their thinking, and responding to one another during problem-solving processes (Goos et al., 2002; Molenaar et al., 2011). In these interactions, metacognitive processes are shared among participants and develop as they work toward a common task.

These become particularly observable in classroom dialogue when participants explain their reasoning (Goos et al., 2002), jointly check their understanding (Iiskala et al., 2021), evaluate their progress aloud (Molenaar et al., 2011), or adjust strategies in response to one another (Goos et al., 2002). However, existing research on socially shared metacognition has mainly focused on secondary school and higher education contexts (Goos et al., 2002; Zepeda et al., 2019), while interactive metacognitive processes in primary school classrooms have received much less attention in empirical research. Therefore, it is still unclear how younger students engage in metacognitive regulation through classroom interaction. Specifically, little is known about how metacognitive processes are co-constructed during primary school whole-class mathematics lessons, despite calls for more classroom-based research on metacognition in the early years (e.g., Zepeda et al., 2019).

Building on these diverse conceptual and analytic approaches, the present study approaches metacognition from an interactional perspective. It focuses on how metacognitive regulation unfolds over time within whole-class mathematics instruction by drawing on classic metacognitive theory and sociocultural perspectives on co-regulation. The study is guided by the following research question:

How do metacognitive events in social interactions develop over time, and what sequential patterns characterize their interactional organization in primary mathematics classrooms?

This study is designed as a qualitative exploratory study and aims to investigate how metacognitive processes are interactionally constructed during whole-class mathematics instruction in primary schools. The study draws on video-based classroom data from the research group INTERFACH, which examines instructional quality and interaction practices in primary education with a particular focus on subject-matter expertise and cognitively demanding teaching, and is funded by the German Research Foundation (Research Training Group 2731). The dataset consists of 18 video-recorded third-grade mathematics lessons, each approximately 60 minutes in length, collected in public primary schools in Germany, along with detailed transcripts of the complete lessons. Within the INTERFACH design, the mathematics lessons were selected to include potentially cognitively activating tasks, such as working with number pyramids or calculation triangles, which require students to discover arithmetic patterns and structures rather than apply routine procedures. Instruction during the lessons typically consisted of different phases, including whole-class discussions, individual, and partner work. Within the scope of the present project, whole-class discussions are the primary focus of analysis. Interactional sequences are identified using an event-based analytic approach to metacognition in classroom interaction by drawing on Smith and Mancy’s (2018) conceptualization of metacognitive talk. In line with this perspective, sequences are defined as units in which forms of metacognitive regulation became interactionally relevant and are taken up across multiple turns of classroom talk. The identified sequences are currently being analysed using a hybrid coding framework developed within the project. The framework aims to capture the interactional and sequential characteristics of metacognitive events in whole-class mathematics instruction. In particular, it focuses on how metacognitive regulation becomes interactionally relevant, is taken up by participants, and develops over time through classroom interaction, as well as on the patterns of participation through which these events unfold. Coding is being conducted iteratively, which allows the framework to be revised through repeated engagement with the data. To support the transparency and reliability of the coding process, an inter-coder agreement with a second coder is planned as part of the ongoing analysis. Ethical approval for data collection was obtained, and informed consent was secured from school authorities, teachers, parents, and students prior to participation. All data used in the present study were anonymized, and identifying information was removed from the data. Pseudonyms are used, and video data were stored securely and accessed only for research purposes.

Preliminary analyses suggest that metacognition in primary mathematics classrooms unfolds through interactionally organized sequences within whole-class instruction. Rather than being visible in single student contributions, metacognitive events become observable when students’ thinking is made relevant in classroom interaction and taken up across multiple turns of talk. Initial findings further indicate that teachers play a central role in initiating and sustaining such metacognitive events. These events are often triggered by teacher prompts that invite students to explain their strategies, reflect on their understanding, or evaluate the plausibility of results. Their development over time appears to depend on how student contributions are taken up, reformulated, or extended by the teacher and by other students. Across the identified events, different forms of metacognitive regulation -planning, monitoring, and evaluating- do not appear to occur to the same extent. Monitoring and evaluation are more frequently observed in sequences where students are encouraged to check solutions, compare strategies, or reflect on the adequacy of their reasoning. These forms of regulation often emerge in follow-up exchanges that require students to clarify or justify their thinking. Planning-related metacognitive talk appears less frequently and is mainly observed retrospectively, when students explain how they approached a task after arriving at a solution. Preliminary analyses also suggest variation in the extent of student participation within metacognitive events. In some sequences, metacognitive regulation is primarily shaped through teacher-student exchanges, whereas in others, multiple students contribute by responding to, building on, or revising previous contributions. Taken together, these preliminary observations point to the importance of examining metacognition as a process that unfolds through classroom interaction over time.

Çini, A., Järvelä, S., Dindar, M. et al. (2023). How multiple levels of metacognitive awareness operate in collaborative problem solving. Metacognition and Learning, 18, 891–922. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-023-09358-7 Desoete, A. (2007). Evaluating and improving the mathematics teaching-learning process through metacognition. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 5(3), 705-730. Donker, A. S., et al. (2014). Effectiveness of learning strategy instruction on academic performance: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 11, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.11.002 Flavell, J. H. (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 Fyfe, E. R., Byers, C., & Nelson, L. J. (2022). The benefits of a metacognitive lesson on children's understanding of mathematical equivalence, arithmetic, and place value. Journal of educational psychology, 114(6), 1292–1306. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000715 Garofalo, J., & Lester, F. K., Jr. (1985). Metacognition, cognitive monitoring, and mathematical performance. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16(3), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.2307/748391 Goos, M., Galbraith, P., & Renshaw, P. (2002). Socially mediated metacognition: Creating collaborative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49(2), 193–223. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016209010120 Iiskala, T., Volet, S., Jones, C., Koretsky, M., & Vauras, M. (2021). Significance of forms and foci of metacognitive regulation in collaborative science learning of less and more successful outcome groups in diverse contexts. Instructional Science, 49, 687–718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09558-1 Molenaar, I., van Boxtel, C. A. M., & Sleegers, P. J. C. (2011). Metacognitive scaffolding in an innovative learning arrangement. Instructional Science, 39, 785–803. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9154-1 Ohtani, K., & Hisasaka, T. (2018). Beyond intelligence: a meta-analytic review of the relationship among metacognition, intelligence, and academic performance. Metacognition and Learning, 13, 179–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-018-9183-8 Schneider, W., & Artelt, C. (2010). Metacognition and mathematics education. ZDM, 42(2), 149-161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-010-0240-2 Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Academic Press. Smith, J. M., & Mancy, R. (2018). Exploring the relationship between metacognitive and collaborative talk during group mathematical problem-solving: What do we mean by collaborative metacognition? Research in Mathematics Education, 20(1), 14–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2017.1410215 Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0 Zepeda, C. D., Hlutkowsky, C. O., Partika, A. C., & Nokes-Malach, T. J. (2019). Identifying teachers’ supports of metacognition through classroom talk. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(3), 522–541. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000300