COGNITIVE PREDICTORS ACADEMIC SKILLS 1 Executive Functions and Metacognitive Monitoring Are Not Interchangeable in Educational Settings: Shared and Unique Contributions to Academic Outcomes Rina Pak-ying Lai, Michelle R. Ellefson, and Claire Hughes University of Cambridge Author Notes This manuscript is under peer review. This is not the final version. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Michelle R. Ellefson, University of Cambridge Faculty of Education, 184 Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 8PQ, United Kingdom. Email: [email protected]. A joint-council award to the authors funded this research (ES/K010225/1: Economic and Social Research Council, Research Grants Council of HK). Thinking Games website development supported by the Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305A110932 to the University of Cambridge. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent the views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education. Electronic access to dataset from the entire project: http://reshare.ukdataservice.ac.uk/ 852570/. The full data set for the externally funded project is available through the UK Data Service at http://reshare.ukdataservice.ac.uk/852570/. Materials used for the executive function tasks are available from http://reshare.ukdataservice.ac.uk/852658/. A preprint has been uploaded to https://psyarxiv.com/4jhnz. Initial analyses for this manuscript were conducted by Rina Pak-ying Lai in partial fulfillment of a masters degree. Thanks to (1) Geoff Martin for Thinking Games website programming; (2) Florrie Ng and Qian Wang for comments on the early research design; (3) COGNITIVE PREDICTORS ACADEMIC SKILLS 2 Annabel Amodia-Bidakowska, Emma Chatzispyridou, Yiming Han, Katherine Parkin, Annie Raff, Antonia Zachariou for data collection assistance; (4) Rosie Blunt, Hannah Bush, Claudia Chu, Shehnaz Dowlet, Ellie Frank, Anton Evans, Tanya Paes, Nelly Hu-Kwo for scoring and data entry assistance and (5) Ric Parkin for proof reading. COGNITIVE PREDICTORS ACADEMIC SKILLS 3 Abstract Executive functions and metacognition are two cognitive predictors with well- established connections to academic performance. Despite sharing several theoretical characteristics, their overlap or independence concerning multiple academic outcomes remain under-researched. To address this gap, the present study applies a latent-variable approach to test a novel theoretical model that delineates the structural links between executive functions, metacognition, and academic outcomes. In whole-class sessions, 455 children aged 9 to 14 years (M = 11.92; SD = 0.93) completed four computerized executive function tasks (cognitive flexibility, inhibition, working memory, and planning), a self-reported metacognitive monitoring questionnaire, a general cognitive ability test, and three standardized tests of academic ability. The results suggest that executive functions and metacognitive monitoring are not interchangeable in the educational context and that they have both shared and unique contributions to diverse academic outcomes. The findings are important for elucidating the role between two domain-general cognitive skills (executive functions and metacognition) and domain-specific academic skills. Keywords Executive functions, metacognition, open data, open materials, inhibition, working memory, cognitive flexibility, planning, metacognitive monitoring, reasoning, numeracy, literacy COGNITIVE PREDICTORS ACADEMIC SKILLS 4 Executive Functions and Metacognitive Monitoring Are Not Interchangeable in Educational Settings: Shared and Unique Contributions to Academic Outcomes Among the various cognitive abilities that help explain individual differences in academic outcomes, the constructs of executive functions and metacognition have attracted research interests from diverse disciplines. Situated within the self-regulation framework, processes such as goal-directedness, behavioral regulation, inhibition and flexibility are fundamental skills that predict academic and learning outcomes. Despite their relevance, however, theoretical and methodological concerns constrain conclusions regarding how executive functions and metacognition relate to each other and whether they show overlapping or interacting associations with academic outcomes. Traditionally, executive functions and metacognition have been examined separately in different research traditions, but recent studies have begun to consider their theoretical and developmental similarities, as well as methodological differences (e.g., Roebers, 2017; Roebers et al., 2009). Both executive functions and metacognition are considered domain- general, “multi-faceted” constructs (e.g., Friedman et al., 2008; Georghiades, 2004); both regulate and monitor lower-order processes in a top-down approach (e.g., Diamond, 2013; Roebers & Feurer, 2016); both are relevant to learning, problem-solving, and self-regulation (e.g., Diamond, 2013; Zimmerman 2011); and both are underpinned by similar neuro- mechanisms in the prefrontal cortex (e.g., Ardila, 2008; Fleming et al., 2012). Reflecting these commonalities, they are often considered as similar conceptual phenomena. Empirically, however, their unique and shared contributions to academic performance have yet to be examined. Addressing this gap is important from both theoretical and practical perspectives. Theoretically, it is necessary to establish whether executive functions and metacognition are simply different terms for the same phenomenon in the education context. Practically, understanding the independence or interplay of effects is helpful for designing executive functions or metacognition interventions, which currently have quite modest results (e.g., Serpell & Esposito, 2016). COGNITIVE PREDICTORS ACADEMIC SKILLS 5 The interdisciplinary nature of studying executive functions and metacognition raises a methodological challenge as these cognitive constructs have different historical roots (Fernandez-Duque et al., 2000). The concept of executive functions stems from neuro- psychological research that relies on performance-based tasks and experimental methods. In contrast, metacognition, particularly procedural metacognition, is rooted in developmental/ educational psychological research that often utilizes school-related assessment methods within a classroom setting (Roebers, 2017). As such, examining both constructs in an educationally valid context might help identify the difference between their research philosophies. More specifically, does the different measurement methods most appropriate for each respective construct drive different theories? In this study, we apply an interdisciplinary approach by combining an experimental method to measure executive functions and an educational psychology method to assess metacognition. This approach can inform current theoretical and applied perspectives on the links between executive functions and metacognition as well as their individual contribution to educational outcomes (Garner, 2009). Executive Functions Executive functions are multifaceted and encompass a set of self-regulatory processes that are key to controlling thoughts and behaviors in novel or challenging situations (Hughes et al., 2010). These include many higher-order cognitive abilities, such as having mental flexibility, suppressing irrelevant information and responses (inhibition), manipulating and updating information in mind (working memory), and thinking ahead (planning) (Chan et al., 2008). Numerous studies have linked executive function skills to academic success; indeed, individual differences in executive functions explain 20-60% of the variance in learner’s academic outcomes (Roebers, 2017). The predictiveness of executive functions on literacy and numeracy achievement appears consistent across many studies (e.g., Jacob & Parkinson, 2015; Mulder et al., 2017; Schmitt et al., 2017). The association between executive functions and academic outcomes is strong across measurement tools, academic COGNITIVE PREDICTORS ACADEMIC SKILLS 6 subjects, and developmental stages (Blair & Razza, 2007; Blair et al., 2014). However, these links are not always consistent after controlling for other factors. For example, Schmitt et al. (2017) found that executive functions were predictive of both literacy and numeracy skills even after controlling for age and socioeconomic status. In contrast, Jacob & Parkinson (2015) did not find these links after age, socioeconomic status, and general cognitive ability are controlled. In younger children, executive functions contribute between 5% to 36% of the variance in early academic outcomes (Roebers, 2017). By and large, executive function skills explain about 25% of the variance in numeracy skills and 16% of the variance in literacy skills in preschooler and kindergarteners (Roebers, 2017). However, given that different components of executive functions develop rapidly and become progressively distinct with age (e.g., Best & Miller, 2010; Huizinga et al., 2006), the links with academic domains could vary between early childhood and late childhood. To date, however, fewer studies have explored these links in late childhood and early adolescence, a developmental stage where components of these constructs improved significantly (Pureza et al., 2013). It remains ambiguous whether these links are also observed in these age groups that are less well researched albeit mark an important stage of cognitive development. Ellefson et al. (2020) found strong links