Robin Green – Metacognition and Problem Solving Past Paper PDF

[Robin Green -- Metacognition and Problem Solving:] PAST ESSAY QUESTIONS: 4\. Critically discuss to what extent the frontal lobes and metacognition are required for effective problem solving. (Robin Green) Do you think that the frontal lobes are important for both problem solving and metacognitio...

[Robin Green -- Metacognition and Problem Solving:] PAST ESSAY QUESTIONS: 4\. Critically discuss to what extent the frontal lobes and metacognition are required for effective problem solving. (Robin Green) Do you think that the frontal lobes are important for both problem solving and metacognition? Support your view with a critical discussion of the evidence, theories and possible overlaps in cognitive processes serving the frontal lobes. (Robin Green) 5\. What do you think is the most convincing explanation as to how we solve problems and their neural bases? Critically appraise the evidence and theories to justify your argument. 6\. Does problem solving require metacognition? Support your view through a critical analysis of the neuroscientific and behavioural evidence and psychological theories. 5\. How would you best explain how we solve problems? In your answer, include a critical evaluation of neuroscientific and behavioural evidence as well as pertinent psychological theories. 6\. To what extent are metacognitive processes involved in problem solving? Include in your answer a critical discussion of both neuroscientific and cognitive evidence, and their theoretical explanations. Critically assess the cognitive and neural basis of metacognition and the extent to which anosognosia can reveal this neural basis. 4\. To what extent are metacognitive processes involved in problem solving? Critically assess the theories and evidence from behavioural and neuroscientific studies. Critically evaluate the extent to which the neuroscientific evidence has resolved the debate in distinguishing mental imagery from perception. 8. Discuss the evidence as to the relationship and neural bases between metacognition and problem solving. Metacognition: **[What is Metacognition:]** **Metacognition** refers to \"thinking about thinking\" and involves awareness and regulation of one's cognitive processes. It includes: - - - It's a **top-down process** linked to: - - - - - **[Error Detection and Correction:]** **[Norman and Shallice's (1989) Supervisory Attention System:]** **[The Utility of Metacognition (Norman 2020) -- WHATS THE USE?]** Metacognitive **Knowledge\ ** This refers to your understanding of your own thinking processes. It's about knowing how you think and learn, and recognizing which strategies are effective for you. This includes knowing when and why certain strategies might be needed. For example, you might be aware that taking breaks helps you concentrate better, or that you need to review information after learning it to reinforce it. Metacognitive **Experiences\ ** These are the feelings or insights that arise during cognitive tasks. Essentially, it\'s your awareness of how well or poorly you\'re understanding or processing information in real time. It involves recognizing when you\'re struggling or succeeding. For instance, if you\'re reading a complex article and realize you\'re not understanding it, you may recognize that you\'re not engaging deeply with the content. This recognition can prompt you to adjust your approach, like re-reading or summarizing key points. Metacognitive **Strategies\ ** These are the specific actions or plans you create to monitor and regulate your thinking. These strategies help you plan, evaluate, and adjust how you approach tasks. In the example of reading the article, you might create a strategy to highlight key points or take notes, or you might set a timer to take breaks at regular intervals to stay focused. These actions are deliberate and intended to improve your cognitive performance. is very helpful in the medical profession This highlights an important distinction in metacognition: **confidence** (how people perceive their abilities) and **competence** (how well they actually perform) are not always aligned. The ability to improve performance through **learning from errors** reflects **metacognitive growth**, where individuals enhance their cognitive skills by recognizing mistakes and adjusting their actions. However, the **lack of increased confidence** shows that **metacognitive awareness** (recognizing the need for improvement) does not necessarily translate to **confidence in one\'s abilities**, further illustrating that **metacognition is more about regulating cognitive processes than about feeling more capable**. Unhelpful Metacognition: **Another component of metacognition: [Inner Speech:]** **[Role in Inner Speech:]** **\^THIS IS PROOF FOR METACOGNITIVE SPEECH REGULATING THOUGHTS EVIDENCE FOR VYGOTSKY** **Limitation: The reliance on inner speech for metacognitive control is critiqued for its variability across individuals. Studies by Baldo and others suggest that inner speech plays a key role in cognitive tasks, but the lack of clear, standardized measures of inner speech poses a challenge in generalizing its role across different cognitive functions.** **[Neuropsychology of Inner Speech:]** **Limitation: The neuropsychological role of inner speech in metacognition is difficult to isolate, as studies like those by Baldo et al. focus primarily on verbal tasks. This neglects non-verbal forms of inner thought and overlooks how individuals with different cognitive styles or conditions (e.g., non-verbal thinkers) might engage in metacognitive processes.** **Genetic and Cultural Origins of Metacognition:** **Evidence to suggest metacognition has a genetic component** This explanation suggests that **metacognition** (the ability to think about and regulate one\'s own thinking) might have a genetic component. One evolutionary theory is that humans are **genetically predisposed** to focus on the actions of others, which helps us learn through **vicarious learning**---learning by observing others instead of directly experiencing something ourselves. For example, by watching someone else make a mistake, we can learn from their experience and apply it to our own thinking. This tendency to observe and reflect on others\' actions may help develop metacognitive skills by encouraging self-regulation and reflection. **[Cultural Differences in Aspects of Metacognition:]** **[Issues with Studying Metacognition:]** **[Neural Basis of Metacognition:]** **[Error Monitoring in Brain:]** **Neuropharmacology of Error/Performance Monitoring -- aka chemical changes with error detection** **Dopamine in the Anterior Cingulate Cortex (ACC)**: When the brain detects an error or conflict (such as when there\'s a choice between competing responses), the level of **dopamine** in the **ACC** decreases. This suggests that dopamine plays a role in **error detection** and **monitoring**, and that lower dopamine levels are associated with recognizing and addressing mistakes. **Acetylcholine (ACh) and Error Correction**: **Acetylcholine** may help with the **top-down correction of errors**. This means ACh could help us adjust our thinking and actions when we realize we've made a mistake, providing cognitive flexibility to change strategies (as discussed in **Nelson et al., 2005**). **ACh in Arousal, Attention, and Cortical Excitability**: ACh also plays a role in **arousal** (alertness), **attention**, and **cortical excitability** (how easily the brain\'s cortex responds to stimuli). According to **Sarter et al. (2006)**, ACh is important for maintaining focus and preparing the brain to process information, which is crucial during tasks requiring high attention or when errors need to be corrected. **[Meta-Analysis of FMRI studies]**: **[Anosognosia:]** **[where individuals are unaware of their own cognitive, motor, or social deficits -- EVIDENCE FOR METACOGNITION]** **[Global or Specific Anosognosia]** **Limitation**: Morris et al.\'s suggestion that anosognosia results from a failure to encode deficits into memory is valuable but does not fully account for the dynamic nature of self-awareness. This theory does not explain why some individuals with similar neurological damage exhibit varying degrees of anosognosia. Additionally, the idea of memory encoding deficits does not clarify the role of emotional or motivational factors that may also influence self-awareness. Evidence: While memory deficits are indeed a critical factor, studies like those by O\'Keefe et al. (2007) on FT dementia suggest that emotional and motivational aspects also contribute to a lack of self-awareness, thus complicating the purely cognitive explanation of anosognosia. [ ] **[Problem Solving:]** Defining Problems: **Knowledge-Rich Problem:** **Knowledge-Lean Problem:** **[Problem Solving Cycle (Schwarz and Skurik, 2003) -- a very cognitive view]** **oversimplifies the real-world process of problem solving, where external factors (e.g., time pressure, environmental context) can significantly influence problem-solving success. The model doesn\'t account for these dynamic, situational variables.** **Evidence: While the cycle emphasizes cognitive steps like defining problems and strategy construction, real-world problem solving often requires flexibility and adaptive decision-making, as highlighted by the limitations of rigid problem-solving models (e.g., Gick & Lockhart, 1995).** **[Explanations for Problem Solving:]** Your environment dictates the actions you are given and then you respond to that. **Gestalt Approach to Problem Solving -- we like to perceive things as coherent objects that add up so we create a holistic picture** **[Insight (basically an AHA moment "I get it now":]** **Incubation: "sleep on it" and come back later** **Limitation: Although the incubation effect suggests that taking breaks improves problem solving, the effect is often small and inconsistent. Studies like Sio and Ormerod (2009) report that while incubation can aid in solving problems that require creativity, it is less effective for tasks with straightforward solutions.** **Evidence: Sio and Ormerod (2009) found that incubation effects are stronger for creative tasks but weak for simple problems, suggesting that the benefits of stepping away are context-dependent and not universally applicable.** Functional Fixedness (Duncker 1945) \- Hints Hints: The experiment provided subtle hints to participants, such as suggesting they might use nearby objects like a chair. These hints helped participants see the solution, which involved swinging one string to make it reach the other---an approach they likely wouldn't have thought of on their own. This insight---the \"Aha!\" moment---comes when the person suddenly realizes how to solve the problem after considering these hints. **[Mental Set]**: **persisting with a technique because it worked before** **So HOW do we solve problems?\ [Information Processing strategies for Solving Problems]** Emotion Has Been Associated with Influencing Problem Solving **[Ohllson 1992 -- Representation Change Theory:]** Ohlsson's 1992 Representation Change Theory explains that insight---the "Aha!" moment---happens when we change how we represent or think about a problem. Instead of just continuing to apply the same approach, we rethink the problem and find a new way to understand or solve it. This change in thinking involves three key components: **Constraint Relaxation:** This means letting go of assumptions or rules that are restricting how we think about the problem. For example, if we assume that certain rules can't be changed, relaxing those constraints might help us find a new, unexpected solution. **Re-encoding**: This involves reinterpreting the problem. It's like looking at the problem from a different angle or in a new way, which helps to uncover solutions we might not have considered before. **Elaboration:** This is adding more information or details to the problem. By expanding our understanding of the problem, we can make new connections that lead to an insight or solution **Limitation: Representation Change Theory assumes that problem-solving requires rethinking the problem entirely, but it does not explain the cognitive processes that lead to this shift. It also fails to account for individual differences in problem-solving strategies, such as those observed in working memory capacity, which may impact how representation changes occur.** **Evidence: Ohlsson's theory highlights constraint relaxation and re-encoding, but it does not detail the mechanisms that trigger these shifts. Moreover, individual differences in cognitive abilities, as discussed by researchers like Baddeley (1996), complicate the model's universality.** Ollinger\'s Theory is about how we solve problems by changing the way we think about them. Before we get stuck (impasse), we start thinking about the problem and search for solutions. If we can\'t find the solution, we hit an impasse---this is the point where we get stuck. To solve the problem, we need to change the way we think about it (called representation change). This means we stop thinking about the problem in the same way and try to look at it from a different perspective. This mental shift is important because it helps us find the solution, but it's hard to predict exactly when the change in thinking will happen. **EVALUATION OF OLLINGERS THEORY (ADD MORE TO THIS)** **Neural Basis of Insight:** **Limitation: While neuroimaging studies suggest a role for the right hemisphere in insight, these findings are often correlational, making it difficult to draw causal conclusions. Additionally, the reliance on fMRI data and EEG studies in insight research presents temporal resolution issues that obscure the precise neural dynamics involved in insight.** **Evidence: Studies like Kounios and Beeman (2014) suggest that insight is linked to the right hemisphere, but the correlation does not address how these brain regions facilitate the \"AHA!\" moment, nor do they account for the intricate cognitive processes underlying the phenomenon.** **What about ACTUAL manipulation and influencing ? We can use brain stimulations:** **[Specific Metacognition and Problem Solving -- whilst problem solving has been studied separately theres a lot of overlap]** Aha! Experience and Accuracy: [ ] **[Metacognition and Insight Experience]** **[Magic tricks and Confidence:]** **MacGregor et al. (2001) -- Progress Monitoring Theory of Problem Solving:** - - 1. 2. **Hedne et al. (2016):** - - - **Danek et al. (2014):** - - - **Danek and Wiley (2017) -- Magic Trick usually lead to False Insights:** - - **Metacognitive cues and problem solving** We use metacognition to monitor how we do a task and monitor how we solve it **Limitation: Dual process theory distinguishes between fast, intuitive thinking (Type 1) and slow, deliberate reasoning (Type 2), but it oversimplifies the complexity of cognitive processing. The theory does not account for how the two systems interact in real-world decision-making, where both fast and slow thinking often operate simultaneously.** **Evidence: Research by Shallice and Cooper (2011) suggests that the interaction between Type 1 and Type 2 thinking is more fluid and context-dependent than the binary distinction proposed by Kahneman. This complexity is not fully addressed in dual-process models.** **[Summary\ ]** Problems can come in various forms\ Behaviourists explain this by trial and error learning\ Gestalt explanation assumes representational change to form a holistic integration of\ the problem\ Information processing accounts suggests we represent different scenarios and use\ heuristics to solve problems\ Hints, functional fixedness and mental set can influence ability to find insightful\ solutions\ Insight can have a neural bases but brain regions are also associated with other\ cognitions