Cargando…
Concept‐metacognition
Concepts are our tools for thinking. They enable us to engage in explicit reasoning about things in the world. Like physical tools, they can be more or less good, given the ways we use them—more or less dependable for categorisation, learning, induction, action‐planning, and so on. Do concept users...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7754438/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33380766 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/mila.12235 |
_version_ | 1783626195453083648 |
---|---|
author | Shea, Nicholas |
author_facet | Shea, Nicholas |
author_sort | Shea, Nicholas |
collection | PubMed |
description | Concepts are our tools for thinking. They enable us to engage in explicit reasoning about things in the world. Like physical tools, they can be more or less good, given the ways we use them—more or less dependable for categorisation, learning, induction, action‐planning, and so on. Do concept users appreciate, explicitly or implicitly, that concepts vary in dependability? Do they feel that some concepts are in some way defective? If so, we metacognise our concepts. This article offers a preliminary taxonomy of different forms of metacognition directed at concepts and suggests that concept‐metacognition impacts on several different cognitive processes. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7754438 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Blackwell Publishing Ltd |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-77544382020-12-28 Concept‐metacognition Shea, Nicholas Mind Lang Original Articles Concepts are our tools for thinking. They enable us to engage in explicit reasoning about things in the world. Like physical tools, they can be more or less good, given the ways we use them—more or less dependable for categorisation, learning, induction, action‐planning, and so on. Do concept users appreciate, explicitly or implicitly, that concepts vary in dependability? Do they feel that some concepts are in some way defective? If so, we metacognise our concepts. This article offers a preliminary taxonomy of different forms of metacognition directed at concepts and suggests that concept‐metacognition impacts on several different cognitive processes. Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2019-05-01 2020-11 /pmc/articles/PMC7754438/ /pubmed/33380766 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/mila.12235 Text en © 2019 The Author. Mind & Language published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Shea, Nicholas Concept‐metacognition |
title | Concept‐metacognition |
title_full | Concept‐metacognition |
title_fullStr | Concept‐metacognition |
title_full_unstemmed | Concept‐metacognition |
title_short | Concept‐metacognition |
title_sort | concept‐metacognition |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7754438/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33380766 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/mila.12235 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sheanicholas conceptmetacognition |