The performance of introductory students on similar tasks used to assess their understanding of a particular physics topic can vary widely; conceptual and reasoning competence demonstrated on one task is often not exhibited on another, closely related task. Indeed, performance is often poor on tasks that strongly elicit students' intuitive ideas. Previously, we developed a paired-question methodology to disentangle reasoning approaches from conceptual understanding and used the dual process heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning to account for observed inconsistencies in student reasoning. It has been argued that metacognition may foster the productive engagement of the analytic process during reasoning. In this study, we examined the impact on student reasoning patterns of three metacognitive interventions that varied significantly in both focus and scaffolding. Our findings suggest that, even for students with a robust conceptual understanding, incorrect intuitive reasoning persists and these interventions do not appear to engage the analytic process more productively.