Metacognition and Critical Thinking in Online Learning: What Educators Need to Know

Online education gives students considerable freedom over when, where and how they study, but that freedom also places greater responsibility on the learner. Without the physical structure of a classroom, students have to organise their own time, decide what to focus on, monitor whether they understand the material and recognise when they need to change their approach. A 2024 study by Ana Pereles, Beatriz Ortega-Ruipérez and Miguel Lázaro examines whether deliberately supporting these metacognitive processes can also improve critical thinking. Their findings suggest that helping students plan, monitor and evaluate their own learning may strengthen the way they analyse information, consider different viewpoints and make reasoned judgements during online study (Pereles, Ortega-Ruipérez, & Lázaro, 2024).

The study is particularly relevant to educators because online learning has become a normal part of education rather than a specialist alternative. Universities, professional development programmes and increasingly schools expect learners to complete substantial amounts of work independently. This flexibility can be valuable, but the authors argue that online students need strong self-regulation skills if they are to use that independence effectively. Self-regulated learning involves setting goals, planning how to reach them, checking progress and evaluating whether the strategies being used are actually working. Students also need to recognise when they require additional help or need to revisit material they have misunderstood (Pereles et al., 2024).

This connects closely with metacognition. Metacognition is usually described as awareness and management of one’s own thinking. In practical terms, it involves students asking themselves questions such as: What am I trying to achieve? Do I actually understand this? Is my current strategy working? What am I finding difficult? What should I change? The study argues that these kinds of questions are particularly important in online education because students have fewer immediate external cues telling them how well they are progressing. A learner who can recognise that they do not understand something is in a much better position to seek clarification, change strategy or devote additional time to the problem than a learner who simply continues without monitoring their understanding (Pereles et al., 2024).

The researchers were also interested in the relationship between metacognition and critical thinking. Critical thinking is described in the study as the ability to analyse, evaluate and synthesise information in a reflective way. It involves questioning assumptions, examining arguments, comparing evidence and making informed judgements. These abilities are closely connected with self-regulated learning because students need to make decisions about the quality of the information they encounter and about their own understanding of that information. The authors therefore suggest that learning to regulate one’s own thinking may support the development of critical thinking as well as improving study habits more generally (Pereles et al., 2024).

To investigate this idea, the researchers studied postgraduate students completing an online master’s degree in educational technology. The methods section reports that 252 students participated. They were trainee teachers, making the findings especially interesting for education because the participants were simultaneously learners themselves and professionals who might later apply similar strategies with their own students. The research used a digital application called Metadig, specifically designed to encourage metacognitive strategies associated with self-regulated learning.

Metadig was built around three simple processes: planning, monitoring and self-assessment. At the beginning of the study period, students used the tool to establish their objectives and think about how they would approach them. Over the following 15 weeks they could use it to monitor their progress. At the end of the course period, they used a self-assessment function to review their original goals and identify the areas that required further attention before their examinations. The students also received training on self-regulated learning and metacognitive strategies. In other words, the intervention did not simply provide students with another piece of educational technology. It gave them a structured process for thinking about how they were learning (Pereles et al., 2024).

This distinction has important implications for educators. Digital tools are often introduced because they make an existing task faster or easier, but the Metadig approach uses technology to prompt students to perform cognitive work themselves. The application repeatedly directs attention back towards goals, strategies, progress and evaluation. An educator does not necessarily need this particular application to apply the underlying principle. A learning management system, digital journal, paper worksheet or regular classroom routine could be organised around the same cycle. Before learning, students plan. During learning, they monitor. Afterwards, they evaluate.

The researchers compared students who regularly used Metadig with students who used it very little after the first few days. Around 42% of participants, or 105 students, became regular users, while 147 students formed the comparison group. Critical thinking was measured before and after the intervention using a standardised Critical Thinking Questionnaire. The researchers then statistically controlled for students’ initial scores in order to examine whether the groups differed at the end of the study period (Pereles et al., 2024).

The questionnaire divided critical thinking into two broad dimensions: substantive and dialogical thinking. Substantive critical thinking concerns how a person evaluates information itself. It includes using evidence, examining claims, forming coherent arguments and distinguishing stronger reasoning from weaker reasoning. Dialogical critical thinking involves considering one’s own thinking in relation to other perspectives. It requires people to compare viewpoints, recognise alternative interpretations and reconsider their own ideas when confronted with other arguments. Both forms are educationally important. Students need to be capable of evaluating evidence, but they also need to understand that their own interpretation is one possible perspective that may need to be tested against others.

The results showed statistically significant differences between regular Metadig users and those who did not regularly use the tool. After controlling for their initial scores, regular users scored higher in both substantive and dialogical critical thinking. The difference was larger for dialogical thinking. On the four-point scale used in the study, the estimated substantive score was approximately 3.36 for regular users compared with 3.17 for non-regular users, while the estimated dialogical score was approximately 3.18 compared with 2.91. The researchers therefore concluded that regular use of metacognitive strategies through the tool was associated with improvements in both areas of critical thinking (Pereles et al., 2024).

The study also examined reading, writing and oral expression within these two dimensions. Students who regularly used Metadig reported higher critical-thinking scores across all of these areas. The differences were again somewhat greater within the dialogical dimension, suggesting that metacognitive activity may have been particularly useful for helping learners compare their own thinking with other perspectives. The authors interpret this as evidence that metacognition can help students become more reflective when reading texts, presenting arguments and responding to other people’s ideas (Pereles et al., 2024).

For educators, perhaps the most useful point is that the metacognitive strategies involved are remarkably simple. Students were encouraged to establish goals, decide how they would approach those goals, monitor whether they were making progress and evaluate their performance afterwards. These processes can be incorporated into almost any subject. Before beginning an essay, students might identify what a successful answer requires and which areas they understand least well. During the task, they might stop periodically to ask whether their argument is answering the question and whether the evidence they are using actually supports their claims. After completing it, they might identify which strategies worked, where they became stuck and what they would change next time.

A similar process can be used with reading. Students often reach the end of a difficult text without noticing how little they have understood. Metacognitive reading requires them to monitor comprehension while reading. They might pause after a section and explain its main argument in their own words, identify an assumption made by the author, distinguish evidence from opinion or record a question that remains unanswered. If they cannot explain what they have just read, this becomes a signal that they need to reread, slow down, seek another explanation or ask for help. The learner therefore becomes an active monitor of comprehension.

The same principle can strengthen classroom discussion and writing. Before expressing an opinion, students can consider what evidence supports it. After encountering another perspective, they can ask whether it changes their original position. When writing, students can evaluate whether they have considered reasonable objections and whether their evidence really justifies their conclusion. These behaviours combine metacognition and critical thinking because students are examining both the subject matter and the quality of their own reasoning.

This may help explain why the study found stronger differences in dialogical critical thinking. Deliberately monitoring one’s own thought processes can make it easier to recognise that an initial interpretation may be incomplete. Students who regularly reflect on their reasoning may become more willing to compare it with alternatives rather than treating their first response as final. Pereles et al. (2024) argue that metacognitive strategies can therefore support reasoning and decision-making when students engage with their own ideas and the ideas of other people.

The research also suggests that educators should avoid assuming that students naturally acquire self-regulation simply because they are given independence. Giving students control over when they study does not necessarily teach them how to manage that freedom. Some learners already possess effective planning and monitoring strategies, while others may procrastinate, underestimate how long tasks will take, continue using ineffective strategies or fail to recognise misunderstanding. Online courses may therefore need to teach the process of independent learning explicitly.

This can be done without creating a separate course in metacognition. Small prompts can be incorporated into normal teaching. At the beginning of a week, students might identify their most important learning goal and how they intend to achieve it. Halfway through, they might rate their progress and identify any obstacle. At the end, they might compare their actual performance with their original prediction. Over time, these repeated cycles can make planning, monitoring and evaluation habitual parts of learning.

There is also a broader lesson about educational technology. The study provides an example of technology being used to encourage students to think about their learning rather than simply delivering more content. This is an important distinction at a time when educational technology increasingly promises automation, personalisation and instant assistance. A useful digital tool can act as a scaffold for independent thinking by reminding students to set goals, reflect and make decisions. The educational value lies in the thinking that the tool encourages the student to perform.

The findings should, however, be interpreted cautiously. This was a quasi-experimental study rather than a randomised experiment. Students chose whether to use Metadig regularly, meaning that the researchers could not randomly assign participants to the two groups. The students who continued using the tool may therefore have differed from the other students in ways that also influenced the results. They may, for example, have been more motivated, more organised or more interested in improving their learning from the beginning. The statistical analysis controlled for initial critical-thinking scores, but it cannot completely remove the possibility of self-selection effects. The authors themselves describe the study as exploratory and acknowledge that the participants formed a convenience sample (Pereles et al., 2024).

Another important limitation is that critical thinking was assessed using a self-perception questionnaire. The study therefore measured how participants rated their own critical-thinking behaviours, rather than directly testing their ability to solve unfamiliar reasoning problems. The questionnaire showed strong reliability overall and for the main substantive and dialogical dimensions, although some of the smaller dialogical subscales had considerably lower reliability. The researchers consequently placed greater emphasis on the broader dimensions when analysing the results. These issues mean that the study provides promising evidence of a relationship between structured metacognitive practice and critical thinking, but it does not conclusively prove that the Metadig tool itself caused the observed improvements.

There is also a small inconsistency in the article that should be noted. The abstract describes a sample of 225 students, while the methods and results sections report 252 participants. The detailed analysis throughout the paper uses the figure of 252. This does not invalidate the findings, but it is another reason to read the precise numerical claims with appropriate caution.

Despite these limitations, the study offers a useful practical message. Critical thinking may be strengthened when educators help students become more conscious of how they learn. Planning encourages students to think ahead rather than simply begin a task. Monitoring helps them recognise confusion and ineffective strategies while there is still time to respond. Self-assessment encourages them to compare their performance with their goals and use what they have learned to improve the next attempt. Together, these processes turn learning into something students actively manage.

The implications reach beyond online higher education. Although the participants in this study were trainee teachers completing a postgraduate programme, the basic cycle of planning, monitoring and evaluation can be adapted for younger learners and face-to-face classrooms. Teachers can model these processes aloud, gradually provide students with opportunities to practise them and eventually reduce the amount of prompting as learners become more independent. The long-term aim is for students to internalise the questions that were initially supplied by the teacher or digital tool.

Pereles et al. (2024) ultimately argue that metacognitive strategies deserve greater attention because they connect several important educational goals. They can help learners regulate their study, become more aware of their own understanding, make better decisions about when to seek help and engage more critically with information. The study also reminds educators that critical thinking develops through habits of reflection. Telling students to “think critically” is unlikely to be enough. They need concrete processes that show them how to examine their own reasoning and how to respond when that reasoning is incomplete.

For educators, one useful principle emerges from the research: whenever students are asked to complete a substantial learning task, they should also be encouraged to think about how they are approaching it. Before the task, they can plan. During the task, they can monitor. Afterwards, they can evaluate. These simple metacognitive habits may help students become more independent learners while also creating better conditions for careful, reflective and genuinely critical thinking.

Reference

Pereles, A., Ortega-Ruipérez, B., & Lázaro, M. (2024). The power of metacognitive strategies to enhance critical thinking in online learning. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 14(3), 831–843. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.2721