元认知监控和执行功能是发展心理学和认知心理学的两大研究热点。二者之间有着重要的关系，执行功能子成分可能在元认知监测、控制的关系中起着重要作用。本研究通过考察元认知监控与执行功能的关系，试图证明执行功能是更基础的能力，进而解释元认知监控的内部机制及其在个体思维活动中的作用机制。本文主要包括两个研究，研究一又分为两个子研究：研究一A采用Mastermind游戏作为任务载体，并结合问卷法和访谈法，探讨适合考察元认知监控的任务难度及有效测量指标；研究一B采用研究一A中确定的游戏4任务考察元认知监控，同时采用经典实验任务考察执行功能，探讨元认知监控与执行功能各子成分的关系。研究结果发现：1．合适难度的任务适合考察大学生的元认知监控。2．在元认知监控的计算机记录指标方面，返回查看前面选项及反馈的“监测时间比”是元认知监测的有效测量指标，而“违背反馈次数比”是元认知控制的有效测量指标。3．元认知监控与执行功能子成分之间存在不同的关系：元认知监测与抑制相关显著；元认知控制与工作记忆相关显著；认知灵活性是元认知监测影响元认知控制的调节变量，即对于高认知灵活性的大学生，能够根据元认知监测进行有效的元认知控制，对于低认知灵活性的大学生，不能够根据元认知监测进行有效的元认知控制。研究二采用在经典的威斯康星卡片分类任务并在任务中嵌入元认知监控过程，以考察元认知监控与执行结果的关系，研究结果发现：4．嵌入执行功能任务中的元认知监测只有通过持续性结果对概念水平起矛盾中介作用；元认知控制在元认知监测与执行结果输出的奖惩结果之间起完全中介作用。两个研究结果表明，执行功能有可能是更一般的能力，元认知监控是更具体的能力。执行功能子成分可以解释元认知监控的作用机制。

Metacognition and executive function are the two hot topics of developmental psychology and cognitive psychology. As the core of metacognition, metacognitive skills entails metacognitve monitoring and metacognitive control. According to metacognitive processing level model, metacognitvie monitoring influences metacognitve control. However, its internal mechanism remains unclear, meanwhile, the influence mechanism of how metacognitve monitoring influencing cognitive processing is in question. Executive function, which consists of inhibition, working memory and components of cognitive flexibility, is the mediating factors in cognitive development. This dissertation aims at exploring the function of metacognitive monitoring in individual thinking through analyzing the relationships between metacognitve monitoring and components of executive function.Research One embodies two experiments. Employing the game Mastermind as research instrument, combining questionnaire and interview, Experiment 1 investigated the difficulty level of metacognitive monitoring and its effective measuring indexes. Measuring both metacognitive monitoring by taking Game 4 ensured in Expriment 1 and executive function through the classical experiments, Experiment 2 investigated the relationships between metacognitve monitoring and components of executive function. It was found that：(1) When the task was simple, metacognitive knowledge was utilized automatically. Only when the task was rather difficult and strategies were searched was metacognitive monitoring triggered, such as in Game 4. (2) As for metacognition indexes recorded on computer, retracing the former items and monitoring time of feedback represented college students’ metacognitive level, while the frequency of violation of feedback well reflected college students’ metacognitive control level. (3) Varying relationships existed between metacognitive mornitoring and components of executive functions: metacognitive monitoring and inhibitive control correlated significantly; metcognitive control correlated with working memory significantly; cognitive flexibility was the mediating variable of metacognitive monitoring influencing metacognitive control, e.g. students of high cognitive flexibility was able to executive metacognitive control according to metacognitive monitoring, however, those with lower flexibility couldn’t implement effective metacognitive control. Adopting Wisconsin Card Sorting with the insertion of metacognitve monitoring process, Research 2 looked into the influence of metacognitive monitoring on the result of executive function, and examined whether metacognitive control was the metavariable of metacognitive monitoring influencing the result of executive function. The results showed: (4)Only through constant results, metacognitive monitoring inserted in executive function task played an intermediary role. The two studies indicated that executive function could be the important ability to influence the relationships between metacognitive monitoring and metacognitive control.