Updated on
January 21, 2026
|
January 20, 2026
Explore the connection between growth mindset and metacognition. Learn how to combine these approaches for powerful learning outcomes with practical classroom strategies and activities.
When students believe they can improve through effort, they engage more deeply with learning. When they understand how they learn, they make smarter choices about study strategies. These two capabilities, growth mindset and metacognition, form a powerful partnership that transforms classroom outcomes.
Research shows that growth mindset and metacognitive thinking reinforce each other in ways that neither achieves alone. A student with a growth mindset but no metacognitive awareness might work hard without strategic direction. Conversely, a metacognitively aware student with a fixed mindset might recognise ineffective strategies but believe improvement is impossible. Together, they create a learning engine that adapts and strengthens over time.
This guide explores the research connection between these concepts, practical classroom strategies for teaching both simultaneously, and how to avoid common implementation pitfalls.
Growth mindset, introduced by Carol Dweck in the 1980s, centres on the belief that intelligence and abilities can develop through dedication and hard work. Metacognition, first defined by John Flavell in 1979, involves awareness and regulation of one's own thinking processes, essentially, thinking about thinking.
These constructs intersect at a critical point: both require students to view learning as an active process they can control. A meta-analysis by Dignath and Büttner (2008) found that metacognitive strategy instruction showed stronger effects when combined with motivational components, with effect sizes increasing from d = 0.69 to d = 0.83 when motivation was included.
The mechanism is straightforward. Growth mindset creates the belief that effort matters. Metacognition provides the tools to make that effort strategic. Without growth mindset, students might learn metacognitive strategies but abandon them when tasks become difficult, attributing failure to lack of ability. Without metacognition, students might embrace challenge but lack the self-monitoring skills to adjust when strategies fail.
Schunk and Zimmerman (2007) demonstrated this synergy in their research on self-regulated learning. Students who received both motivational orientation (growth mindset framing) and strategy instruction (metacognitive tools) outperformed those who received either intervention alone. The combined group showed higher task persistence, more accurate self-evaluation, and better strategy adaptation.
Neurological research supports this connection. Brain plasticity studies show that neural pathways strengthen through repeated, effortful practice, the biological foundation of growth mindset. Simultaneously, prefrontal cortex development enables the executive functions underlying metacognition: planning, monitoring, and evaluation. Teaching students about brain plasticity whilst developing their metacognitive awareness helps them understand both that they can change and how to direct that change effectively.
Teaching growth mindset in isolation can produce what researchers call "empty praise" or "false growth mindset." Students learn to say "I can grow" but lack the strategic tools to actually produce growth. A 2018 meta-analysis by Sisk and colleagues found that growth mindset interventions alone showed modest effect sizes (d = 0.08 for academic achievement), smaller than originally reported.
The problem emerges clearly in classroom observations. Students with growth mindset language but weak metacognitive skills often:
Conversely, teaching metacognition without addressing mindset beliefs can create metacognitively aware students who still underperform. These students can identify their knowledge gaps and recognise effective strategies, but attribute their struggles to fixed limitations. They might think, "I can see that I do not understand this, and I know what good learners do, but I am not capable of that level of understanding."
This manifests in several ways:
Research by Paunesku and colleagues (2015) found that combining growth mindset with specific learning strategies produced significantly stronger academic gains than growth mindset interventions alone. The combined intervention helped students both believe in their capacity to improve and know how to enact that improvement.
Metacognitive skills provide the tangible evidence students need to maintain growth mindset beliefs, particularly when learning becomes difficult. Without this concrete feedback, growth mindset can feel like wishful thinking.
Self-monitoring gives students real-time data about their learning. When a student can articulate "I understood the first three steps but got confused at step four," they have specific, actionable information. This precision transforms abstract growth mindset beliefs ("I can improve with effort") into concrete action ("I need to review step four using a different approach").
Metacognitive reflection creates a personal history of growth. When students regularly reflect on their learning processes, they accumulate evidence of their own improvement over time. A student who keeps a learning journal might note: "Three weeks ago I could not solve quadratic equations. Now I can solve them if I draw a visual representation first." This documented growth reinforces mindset beliefs far more effectively than teacher praise.
Strategy knowledge helps students understand that intelligence is not a single, fixed capacity but a collection of learnable skills. When students build a repertoire of strategies, elaborative rehearsal, self-testing, spaced practice, concept mapping, they experience firsthand that "being good at learning" means knowing how to learn, not possessing innate ability.
Error analysis transforms mistakes from evidence of fixed ability into information about learning needs. A metacognitively skilled student who makes an error thinks, "What was my misunderstanding? Which part of my approach needs adjustment?" rather than "I am not smart enough for this." This reframing is essential for maintaining growth mindset during struggle.
Yeager and colleagues (2019) found that growth mindset interventions were most effective for students who also received explicit instruction in learning strategies. The combination helped students interpret challenges as opportunities to deploy new strategies rather than evidence of inadequacy.
Growth mindset creates the motivational foundation necessary for the effortful self-regulation that metacognition requires. Metacognitive monitoring and strategy adjustment demand cognitive resources and persistence, particularly when learning is difficult.
Students with fixed mindset beliefs often resist metacognitive practices because they fear self-assessment will reveal deficiencies they cannot change. Growth mindset beliefs make metacognitive reflection feel safe. A student who believes abilities can develop views self-assessment as useful information rather than threatening judgment.
Challenge-seeking behaviour, characteristic of growth mindset, provides the necessary conditions for metacognitive development. Metacognitive skills develop primarily through tackling difficult tasks that require monitoring, evaluation, and strategy adjustment. Students who avoid challenges because they fear confirming low ability miss these developmental opportunities.
Attributional patterns shaped by growth mindset determine how students use metacognitive feedback. When a student monitors their comprehension and recognises confusion, their mindset determines what happens next. Fixed mindset students might think, "This confirms I cannot do this." Growth mindset students think, "This tells me I need to try a different approach."
Persistence during metacognitive challenge matters significantly. Developing metacognitive awareness and control requires sustained effort. Students must persist through the awkwardness of learning new self-monitoring techniques and the discomfort of confronting knowledge gaps. Growth mindset beliefs provide the resilience needed to continue when metacognitive practice feels difficult.
Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck (2007) demonstrated this relationship in their longitudinal study of adolescents. Students taught that intelligence is malleable showed increased motivation to learn new strategies and greater willingness to engage in effortful self-regulation. The growth mindset intervention created conditions where students valued metacognitive tools because they believed those tools would help them improve.
The most effective activities make both growth mindset and metacognitive processes explicit and concrete within subject content. Abstract discussions about "believing in yourself" or "thinking about thinking" have limited impact. Students need to experience the synergy directly.
Think-Aloud Problem Solving involves teachers modelling both their thinking process and their mindset self-talk whilst solving problems. For example, whilst working through a mathematics problem: "I am not sure which formula applies here. That is normal, confusion is part of learning. Let me think about what I already know about these shapes. I will try treating it as a composite shape and see if that works. If not, I will adjust my approach." This demonstrates both metacognitive monitoring and growth-oriented self-talk.
Students then practise think-alouds in pairs, making their thinking audible whilst problem-solving. The listener notes moments of strategic thinking and growth mindset language. This explicit practice builds awareness of both processes simultaneously.
Learning Strategy Experiments combine metacognitive strategy testing with growth mindset framing. Students try different study approaches for the same material, perhaps flashcards, concept maps, and self-explanation, then reflect on which worked best and why. The activity embeds several key messages: there are multiple effective strategies (not just "being smart"), you can experiment to find what works (growth), and monitoring your own learning helps you improve (metacognition).
Teachers frame these experiments explicitly: "We are not testing whether you are good or bad at science. We are testing which strategies help you learn science most effectively. Everyone finds different strategies useful."
Goal-Setting and Growth Tracking provides concrete evidence of capability development. Students set specific, strategy-based goals rather than outcome-based goals. Instead of "get an A on the test," they might set "use self-testing three times before the exam" or "identify the main idea in each paragraph during reading." They then track their progress toward these strategic goals and reflect on how their performance changes.
The metacognitive element involves monitoring goal progress and adjusting strategies. The growth mindset element comes from accumulating evidence that their strategic efforts produce measurable improvement over time.
Error Analysis Protocols transform mistakes into learning opportunities. After receiving feedback on work, students complete structured reflection: What type of error was this? (conceptual misunderstanding, careless mistake, wrong strategy applied). What was my thinking when I made this error? What will I do differently next time?
This protocol removes the shame from errors whilst building metacognitive awareness of thinking patterns. Students learn that errors reveal specific areas for growth rather than general inadequacy. Teachers might display successful error analyses as models, showing that even strong students make mistakes and learn from them strategically.
Strategy-Sharing Sessions involve students teaching classmates their most effective learning strategies. Students prepare brief presentations: "This is the strategy I use, this is why it works for me, this is when I use it, and this is how I knew it was effective." Hearing peers discuss strategies reinforces that learning skill is developed through strategic effort, not innate ability. It also expands students' metacognitive strategy repertoires.
Teaching students about neuroscience provides a conceptual bridge connecting growth mindset and metacognition. When students understand that learning physically changes their brains, abstract concepts become concrete biological processes.
Neuroplasticity lessons should include three key elements. First, the biological fact: neural connections strengthen with repeated, effortful practice. Brain imaging studies show measurable changes in brain structure when people learn new skills. Second, the personal relevance: their brains are changing right now, in this classroom, as they engage with challenging material. Third, the strategic implication: certain types of practice (spaced, varied, effortful) produce stronger neural changes than others.
Teachers might show students brain imaging research, such as the classic London taxi driver studies by Maguire and colleagues (2000), which demonstrated hippocampal changes in drivers who memorised complex city layouts. This provides visual, scientific evidence that intensive practice changes brain structure.
Connecting plasticity to metacognition involves helping students understand that metacognitive monitoring accelerates neural change. When students actively test themselves, identify knowledge gaps, and target practice toward those gaps, they are directing their brain's rewiring more efficiently than through passive repetition. The metacognitive skill of error detection is not just useful psychologically, it is neurologically efficient.
Practical classroom applications might include "brain growth" reflections after challenging tasks. Students might note: "That was difficult, which means my brain was building new connections. I could feel myself getting better at identifying the key variables as I worked through more examples." This language explicitly links the struggle (growth mindset), the strategy (metacognitive awareness), and the biological process (neuroplasticity).
Strategic practice design informed by neuroscience includes retrieval practice, spaced repetition, and interleaved practice, all strategies with strong neurological foundations. When teachers explain why these strategies work at the neural level, students develop both metacognitive understanding of effective practice and growth mindset beliefs about their capacity to strengthen their brains through strategic effort.
Brown, Roediger, and McDaniel's research, detailed in "Make It Stick" (2014), provides accessible explanations of how different practice strategies affect neural consolidation. This research can be adapted for students: "Your brain consolidates memories better when you space out your practice. Let's design a practice schedule that takes advantage of how your brain works."
One of the most common misunderstandings in growth mindset implementation is praising "working hard" without acknowledging that strategic, focused effort matters more than time spent. This distinction is critical for integrating growth mindset and metacognition effectively.
Differentiating types of effort involves helping students recognise that not all effort is equally productive. Students need to understand three categories. First, strategic effort: focused work using effective techniques, with regular self-monitoring and strategy adjustment. Second, spinning effort: working hard but using ineffective strategies, without monitoring whether the approach is working. Third, helpless effort: persisting with an approach that clearly is not working, without seeking help or trying alternatives.
Teachers can illustrate these differences through classroom discussions: "Imagine two students studying for a vocabulary test. Student A reads the word list over and over for an hour. Student B spends 20 minutes using flashcards, testing themselves, and focusing extra practice on words they got wrong. Both worked hard, but which student used strategic effort?"
Strategy attribution training helps students attribute success and failure to specific strategies rather than general ability or effort. After completing a task, teachers ask: "Which specific strategy helped you most? What would you do differently next time? What did you learn about how you learn?"
This shifts internal dialogue from "I am good at this" or "I tried hard" to "The strategy I used worked well" or "I need a different approach next time." Research by Robertson (2000) found that students trained to make strategy attributions showed greater persistence and more effective self-regulation than those trained to make effort attributions alone.
Effort calibration involves helping students recognise when effort is sufficient, insufficient, or excessive. Some students with fixed mindsets believe that needing to work hard means they lack ability. Others with poorly calibrated growth mindsets believe any amount of effort should produce results. Metacognitive self-monitoring helps students assess whether their current effort level is appropriate for the task difficulty and their current skill level.
Teachers might provide effort calibration guidance: "For this type of task, you should expect to need about three practice attempts before it feels comfortable. If you are still struggling after five attempts, that is useful information, it means you should try a different strategy or seek help, not just try harder with the same approach."
Success analysis matters as much as error analysis. When students succeed, teachers should prompt metacognitive reflection on which strategies contributed: "You did well on this task. What did you do to prepare? Which parts of your preparation were most helpful? What will you do again next time?"
This builds metacognitive awareness of effective strategies whilst reinforcing that success comes from strategic, controllable actions rather than fixed ability. It also helps students build a repertoire of proven strategies they can deploy in future.
Structured reflection practices help students develop resilience by transforming setbacks into learning information rather than ability judgments. This reflection must be both metacognitive (focused on strategies and thinking processes) and mindset-supportive (framed around growth and capability development).
Three-part reflection protocol provides a consistent structure. First, What did I do? (Describe the strategies and approaches used). Second, What happened? (Note the outcome and any difficulties encountered). Third, What will I do next? (Plan specific strategic adjustments based on what was learned).
This protocol embeds both metacognitive awareness (monitoring strategies and outcomes) and growth orientation (focus on future improvement rather than dwelling on past performance). It also provides a concrete alternative to rumination, students process setbacks actively rather than passively worrying about them.
Failure-forward language involves teaching students productive ways to talk about difficulties. Instead of "I failed," students might say "I have not succeeded yet with this approach" or "This attempt gave me information about what I need to work on." This language is not merely euphemistic, it is metacognitively accurate. A single unsuccessful attempt is data about strategy effectiveness, not a definitive judgment of capability.
Teachers model this language consistently: "This essay shows me you have not yet mastered topic sentences, so that is what we will work on next" rather than "This essay is poor." The subtle shift from evaluating the student to evaluating the work and identifying specific growth targets makes a significant psychological difference.
Challenge logs provide a structured way for students to document their growth through difficulties. Students keep a record of challenges they have overcome, noting what strategies they used and how they felt at different stages. Over time, these logs become personalised evidence that persistence and strategy adjustment lead to breakthrough.
A challenge log entry might read: "Week 1: Could not solve multi-step equations, felt frustrated. Week 2: Learned to break problems into steps and check each one, started getting some right. Week 3: Can now solve most multi-step equations if I work carefully. Next challenge: word problems." This documented progression provides powerful counter-evidence to fixed mindset beliefs during future struggles.
Normalising struggle involves creating classroom cultures where difficulty is expected and valued. Teachers might share their own learning challenges and strategy adjustments: "When I was learning to use this software, I got confused by the interface at first. I found that writing down the steps as I went helped me remember the sequence. What strategies have you found helpful when learning something new?"
Research by Boaler (2016) on mathematical mindsets demonstrated that classrooms where struggle was normalised and valued showed higher achievement and engagement than classrooms where fluency was emphasised and struggle was seen negatively.
Self-assessment and metacognitive monitoring can paradoxically reinforce fixed mindset beliefs if not handled carefully. When students reflect on their learning and identify weaknesses, they need frameworks for interpreting those weaknesses as areas for growth rather than evidence of limitation.
Fixed mindset triggers in reflection occur when students use metacognitive awareness to confirm negative self-beliefs. A student might think: "I can see exactly where I went wrong, and I always make the same mistakes. This proves I am just not good at mathematics." The metacognitive accuracy (recognising patterns in errors) combines with fixed mindset interpretation (seeing patterns as evidence of unchangeable traits).
Teachers need to anticipate and address these triggers explicitly. When introducing self-assessment, they might say: "When you notice patterns in your learning, that is useful information about which skills to work on next, not proof that you cannot improve. Everyone has different starting points and different areas that require more practice."
Reframing self-assessment language helps students interpret metacognitive observations through a growth lens. Teachers can provide sentence stems that embed both metacognitive awareness and growth orientation:
These stems acknowledge reality (metacognitive accuracy) whilst framing it developmentally (growth mindset).
Separating performance from capacity involves helping students distinguish between current performance (which fluctuates and depends on many factors including strategy use) and underlying capacity (which can develop over time). A student who performs poorly on a test might reflect: "My performance on this test was weak because I used an ineffective study strategy. My capacity to understand this material can develop if I use more effective strategies."
This distinction is metacognitively sophisticated and essential for maintaining growth mindset during difficulties. Without it, students conflate temporary performance with permanent ability.
Strategy-focused feedback from teachers reinforces this healthy interpretation of metacognitive awareness. When providing feedback, teachers should emphasise what students did strategically and what they might do differently, rather than evaluating their general ability or knowledge level.
Effective feedback might say: "You provided examples for your first two points but not your third. Adding an example there would strengthen your argument. Try listing your examples before you start writing next time." This feedback identifies specific strategic actions (metacognitive focus) and implies capability to improve (growth mindset).
Research by Dweck and colleagues (2007) found that feedback emphasising strategy and process ("You tried hard and used a good strategy") produced better outcomes than feedback emphasising either ability ("You are smart") or effort alone ("You tried hard").
Growth mindset and metacognitive capacity both develop across childhood and adolescence, requiring differentiated teaching approaches at different ages. Younger children need more concrete, scaffolded support, whilst adolescents can engage with more abstract metacognitive analysis.
Primary school ages (5-7 years): Young children can grasp basic growth mindset concepts through concrete examples and stories. Their metacognitive capacity is emerging but limited. Effective approaches include:
Using physical brain growth metaphors: "Your brain is like a muscle that gets stronger when you use it." Simple reflection prompts: "What was tricky about that? What helped you?" Modelling basic self-monitoring: "I am checking my work to see if I made any mistakes." Public recognition of strategy use: "I noticed you tried three different ways to solve that problem. Smart thinking!"
At this age, avoid abstract discussions of thinking processes. Instead, make thinking visible through actions and simple language. The goal is building foundations: learning takes effort, mistakes are normal, trying different approaches is good.
Upper primary ages (8-11 years): Children in this age range can engage with more sophisticated metacognitive strategies and nuanced growth mindset discussions. Effective approaches include:
Explicit strategy instruction with reflection: teaching specific learning strategies and discussing when and why to use them. Simple goal-setting: setting achievable, strategy-focused goals with adult support. Beginning self-assessment: comparing work to clear success criteria and identifying areas for improvement. Introduction to neuroplasticity: age-appropriate explanations of how learning changes the brain.
Students at this age can begin to notice their own thinking patterns and adjust strategies with guidance. They benefit from structured reflection frameworks that make metacognitive processes explicit without overwhelming them.
Secondary school ages (12-18 years): Adolescents can engage with abstract metacognitive concepts and understand complex relationships between effort, strategy, and achievement. They can also hold more nuanced growth mindset beliefs, recognising that abilities develop at different rates in different domains. Effective approaches include:
Sophisticated strategy analysis: comparing multiple strategies, evaluating effectiveness, and making strategic choices independently. Complex goal-setting and planning: setting long-term goals, breaking them into steps, and adjusting plans based on progress monitoring. Deep reflection on thinking processes: analysing thought patterns, identifying unproductive beliefs, and consciously reframing mindset. Discussion of neuroscience research: engaging with actual studies on neuroplasticity and learning.
Adolescents particularly benefit from understanding the research foundations of growth mindset and metacognition. Presenting evidence from psychological and neuroscientific research validates these concepts for students who might otherwise dismiss them as motivational platitudes.
Challenges across ages: Fixed mindset beliefs often strengthen during early adolescence as students become more self-conscious and socially comparative. Metacognitive skills can decline if not explicitly maintained, as content demands increase and students fall back on less sophisticated strategies. Teachers need to revisit and reinforce both concepts consistently across year groups, adapting complexity to student development.
Veenman and colleagues (2006) found that metacognitive skills do not develop automatically with age; explicit instruction is necessary at every developmental stage. Similarly, mindset beliefs are shaped by ongoing experiences and messages, not fixed at a particular age. Consistent, age-appropriate instruction in both areas across a student's educational journey produces the strongest outcomes.
Assessing growth mindset and metacognition simultaneously requires multiple measurement approaches, as both constructs involve beliefs, behaviours, and skills that manifest differently across contexts.
Mindset assessment typically uses self-report questionnaires asking students to rate agreement with statements like "You have a certain amount of intelligence, and you really cannot do much to change it" versus "You can always greatly change how intelligent you are." Dweck's original Mindset Assessment Profile remains widely used, though researchers have developed more nuanced measures recognising that mindset beliefs can be domain-specific.
Limitations of mindset questionnaires include social desirability bias (students report what they believe they should think), gap between stated beliefs and enacted behaviours (what students say they believe versus how they respond to challenge), and context dependence (mindset beliefs can vary by subject area).
Metacognitive assessment uses several approaches. Self-report questionnaires like the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI) or the Junior Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (Jr. MAI for children) ask students to rate their metacognitive knowledge and regulatory skills. Think-aloud protocols involve students verbalising their thinking whilst solving problems, revealing metacognitive monitoring and control processes. Error detection tasks assess whether students can identify mistakes in their own or others' work. Learning journals provide qualitative data about students' self-awareness and strategy use over time.
Metacognitive assessment faces similar challenges to mindset assessment: self-reports may not reflect actual practice, and metacognitive behaviours can vary significantly across domains and tasks.
Combined assessment approaches provide richer data than either measure alone. Teachers might use:
Strategy use interviews: Asking students how they approached recent challenging tasks, what they did when stuck, and how they evaluated their progress. This reveals both their strategy repertoire (metacognition) and their persistence and attribution patterns (mindset indicators).
Goal-setting and review: Examining the goals students set, how specific and strategy-focused those goals are (metacognitive sophistication), and how they respond to gaps between goals and performance (mindset patterns). Students with growth mindset and strong metacognition set specific learning goals, monitor progress accurately, and adjust strategies based on feedback.
Response to feedback: Observing how students use teacher feedback provides strong evidence of both constructs. Do they read feedback carefully (metacognitive engagement)? Do they make specific strategy adjustments (metacognitive application)? Do they persist after critical feedback (growth mindset resilience)?
Academic outcome measures: Ultimately, the combined impact should appear in improved learning outcomes. Effective assessment includes:
Research by Duckworth and Yeager (2015) suggests that measuring both proximal outcomes (strategy use, persistence) and distal outcomes (achievement gains) provides the most complete picture of intervention effectiveness. Proximal outcomes confirm that students are developing the intended skills and beliefs, whilst distal outcomes demonstrate real-world impact.
Practical classroom assessment need not be overly complex. Teachers might use simple reflection prompts in learning journals: "What strategies did you use this week? Which worked well? What will you try next week?" Regular review of these reflections over time shows development of both metacognitive awareness and growth orientation.
Some schools use student conferences where students present evidence of their learning growth, discuss strategies they have found effective, and set future goals. These conferences provide rich qualitative data about students' metacognitive sophistication and mindset beliefs whilst also reinforcing both through the reflective process itself.
Mindset: Changing The Way You Think to Fulfil Your Potential View study ↗ by Carol Dweck (2006) provides the foundational research on growth mindset theory, including studies demonstrating how mindset beliefs affect achievement, motivation, and response to challenge. Dweck distinguishes between fixed and growth mindsets and explores how these beliefs are formed and can be changed. Teachers will find practical guidance on fostering growth mindset in educational settings whilst avoiding common misunderstandings that have emerged as the concept gained popularity.
Metacognition: A Closed-Loop Model of Self-Regulated Learning View study ↗ by Roebers (2017) synthesises research on metacognitive development across childhood and adolescence. The author presents a comprehensive model integrating metacognitive monitoring, control, and the feedback loops between them. This paper is particularly valuable for understanding how metacognitive skills develop and how educators can support that development through appropriate instructional approaches at different ages.
The Synergy of Motivation and Metacognition in Self-Regulated Learning View study ↗ by Dignath and Büttner (2008) presents meta-analytic evidence demonstrating that combining motivational and metacognitive instructional components produces stronger learning outcomes than either alone. The authors analyse 48 studies examining self-regulated learning interventions and find that effect sizes increase substantially when growth mindset concepts are integrated with metacognitive strategy instruction. This research provides empirical support for the integrated approach described in this article.
Neuroplasticity: Changes in Grey Matter Induced by Training View study ↗ by Draganski and colleagues (2004) provides neuroscientific evidence that intensive learning produces measurable structural brain changes in adults. Using magnetic resonance imaging, the researchers demonstrate grey matter increases in regions associated with learning during a three-month juggling training programme. This research offers concrete biological support for growth mindset concepts and helps students understand that learning physically changes the brain.
Self-Regulation Interventions with a Focus on Learning Strategies View study ↗ by Schunk and Zimmerman (2007) examines how self-regulatory skills, including both motivational beliefs and metacognitive strategies, develop through social learning processes. The authors present research demonstrating that students who receive both strategy instruction and motivational support outperform those receiving either intervention alone. Teachers will find detailed descriptions of effective instructional approaches for building self-regulated learning in classroom contexts.
When students believe they can improve through effort, they engage more deeply with learning. When they understand how they learn, they make smarter choices about study strategies. These two capabilities, growth mindset and metacognition, form a powerful partnership that transforms classroom outcomes.
Research shows that growth mindset and metacognitive thinking reinforce each other in ways that neither achieves alone. A student with a growth mindset but no metacognitive awareness might work hard without strategic direction. Conversely, a metacognitively aware student with a fixed mindset might recognise ineffective strategies but believe improvement is impossible. Together, they create a learning engine that adapts and strengthens over time.
This guide explores the research connection between these concepts, practical classroom strategies for teaching both simultaneously, and how to avoid common implementation pitfalls.
Growth mindset, introduced by Carol Dweck in the 1980s, centres on the belief that intelligence and abilities can develop through dedication and hard work. Metacognition, first defined by John Flavell in 1979, involves awareness and regulation of one's own thinking processes, essentially, thinking about thinking.
These constructs intersect at a critical point: both require students to view learning as an active process they can control. A meta-analysis by Dignath and Büttner (2008) found that metacognitive strategy instruction showed stronger effects when combined with motivational components, with effect sizes increasing from d = 0.69 to d = 0.83 when motivation was included.
The mechanism is straightforward. Growth mindset creates the belief that effort matters. Metacognition provides the tools to make that effort strategic. Without growth mindset, students might learn metacognitive strategies but abandon them when tasks become difficult, attributing failure to lack of ability. Without metacognition, students might embrace challenge but lack the self-monitoring skills to adjust when strategies fail.
Schunk and Zimmerman (2007) demonstrated this synergy in their research on self-regulated learning. Students who received both motivational orientation (growth mindset framing) and strategy instruction (metacognitive tools) outperformed those who received either intervention alone. The combined group showed higher task persistence, more accurate self-evaluation, and better strategy adaptation.
Neurological research supports this connection. Brain plasticity studies show that neural pathways strengthen through repeated, effortful practice, the biological foundation of growth mindset. Simultaneously, prefrontal cortex development enables the executive functions underlying metacognition: planning, monitoring, and evaluation. Teaching students about brain plasticity whilst developing their metacognitive awareness helps them understand both that they can change and how to direct that change effectively.
Teaching growth mindset in isolation can produce what researchers call "empty praise" or "false growth mindset." Students learn to say "I can grow" but lack the strategic tools to actually produce growth. A 2018 meta-analysis by Sisk and colleagues found that growth mindset interventions alone showed modest effect sizes (d = 0.08 for academic achievement), smaller than originally reported.
The problem emerges clearly in classroom observations. Students with growth mindset language but weak metacognitive skills often:
Conversely, teaching metacognition without addressing mindset beliefs can create metacognitively aware students who still underperform. These students can identify their knowledge gaps and recognise effective strategies, but attribute their struggles to fixed limitations. They might think, "I can see that I do not understand this, and I know what good learners do, but I am not capable of that level of understanding."
This manifests in several ways:
Research by Paunesku and colleagues (2015) found that combining growth mindset with specific learning strategies produced significantly stronger academic gains than growth mindset interventions alone. The combined intervention helped students both believe in their capacity to improve and know how to enact that improvement.
Metacognitive skills provide the tangible evidence students need to maintain growth mindset beliefs, particularly when learning becomes difficult. Without this concrete feedback, growth mindset can feel like wishful thinking.
Self-monitoring gives students real-time data about their learning. When a student can articulate "I understood the first three steps but got confused at step four," they have specific, actionable information. This precision transforms abstract growth mindset beliefs ("I can improve with effort") into concrete action ("I need to review step four using a different approach").
Metacognitive reflection creates a personal history of growth. When students regularly reflect on their learning processes, they accumulate evidence of their own improvement over time. A student who keeps a learning journal might note: "Three weeks ago I could not solve quadratic equations. Now I can solve them if I draw a visual representation first." This documented growth reinforces mindset beliefs far more effectively than teacher praise.
Strategy knowledge helps students understand that intelligence is not a single, fixed capacity but a collection of learnable skills. When students build a repertoire of strategies, elaborative rehearsal, self-testing, spaced practice, concept mapping, they experience firsthand that "being good at learning" means knowing how to learn, not possessing innate ability.
Error analysis transforms mistakes from evidence of fixed ability into information about learning needs. A metacognitively skilled student who makes an error thinks, "What was my misunderstanding? Which part of my approach needs adjustment?" rather than "I am not smart enough for this." This reframing is essential for maintaining growth mindset during struggle.
Yeager and colleagues (2019) found that growth mindset interventions were most effective for students who also received explicit instruction in learning strategies. The combination helped students interpret challenges as opportunities to deploy new strategies rather than evidence of inadequacy.
Growth mindset creates the motivational foundation necessary for the effortful self-regulation that metacognition requires. Metacognitive monitoring and strategy adjustment demand cognitive resources and persistence, particularly when learning is difficult.
Students with fixed mindset beliefs often resist metacognitive practices because they fear self-assessment will reveal deficiencies they cannot change. Growth mindset beliefs make metacognitive reflection feel safe. A student who believes abilities can develop views self-assessment as useful information rather than threatening judgment.
Challenge-seeking behaviour, characteristic of growth mindset, provides the necessary conditions for metacognitive development. Metacognitive skills develop primarily through tackling difficult tasks that require monitoring, evaluation, and strategy adjustment. Students who avoid challenges because they fear confirming low ability miss these developmental opportunities.
Attributional patterns shaped by growth mindset determine how students use metacognitive feedback. When a student monitors their comprehension and recognises confusion, their mindset determines what happens next. Fixed mindset students might think, "This confirms I cannot do this." Growth mindset students think, "This tells me I need to try a different approach."
Persistence during metacognitive challenge matters significantly. Developing metacognitive awareness and control requires sustained effort. Students must persist through the awkwardness of learning new self-monitoring techniques and the discomfort of confronting knowledge gaps. Growth mindset beliefs provide the resilience needed to continue when metacognitive practice feels difficult.
Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck (2007) demonstrated this relationship in their longitudinal study of adolescents. Students taught that intelligence is malleable showed increased motivation to learn new strategies and greater willingness to engage in effortful self-regulation. The growth mindset intervention created conditions where students valued metacognitive tools because they believed those tools would help them improve.
The most effective activities make both growth mindset and metacognitive processes explicit and concrete within subject content. Abstract discussions about "believing in yourself" or "thinking about thinking" have limited impact. Students need to experience the synergy directly.
Think-Aloud Problem Solving involves teachers modelling both their thinking process and their mindset self-talk whilst solving problems. For example, whilst working through a mathematics problem: "I am not sure which formula applies here. That is normal, confusion is part of learning. Let me think about what I already know about these shapes. I will try treating it as a composite shape and see if that works. If not, I will adjust my approach." This demonstrates both metacognitive monitoring and growth-oriented self-talk.
Students then practise think-alouds in pairs, making their thinking audible whilst problem-solving. The listener notes moments of strategic thinking and growth mindset language. This explicit practice builds awareness of both processes simultaneously.
Learning Strategy Experiments combine metacognitive strategy testing with growth mindset framing. Students try different study approaches for the same material, perhaps flashcards, concept maps, and self-explanation, then reflect on which worked best and why. The activity embeds several key messages: there are multiple effective strategies (not just "being smart"), you can experiment to find what works (growth), and monitoring your own learning helps you improve (metacognition).
Teachers frame these experiments explicitly: "We are not testing whether you are good or bad at science. We are testing which strategies help you learn science most effectively. Everyone finds different strategies useful."
Goal-Setting and Growth Tracking provides concrete evidence of capability development. Students set specific, strategy-based goals rather than outcome-based goals. Instead of "get an A on the test," they might set "use self-testing three times before the exam" or "identify the main idea in each paragraph during reading." They then track their progress toward these strategic goals and reflect on how their performance changes.
The metacognitive element involves monitoring goal progress and adjusting strategies. The growth mindset element comes from accumulating evidence that their strategic efforts produce measurable improvement over time.
Error Analysis Protocols transform mistakes into learning opportunities. After receiving feedback on work, students complete structured reflection: What type of error was this? (conceptual misunderstanding, careless mistake, wrong strategy applied). What was my thinking when I made this error? What will I do differently next time?
This protocol removes the shame from errors whilst building metacognitive awareness of thinking patterns. Students learn that errors reveal specific areas for growth rather than general inadequacy. Teachers might display successful error analyses as models, showing that even strong students make mistakes and learn from them strategically.
Strategy-Sharing Sessions involve students teaching classmates their most effective learning strategies. Students prepare brief presentations: "This is the strategy I use, this is why it works for me, this is when I use it, and this is how I knew it was effective." Hearing peers discuss strategies reinforces that learning skill is developed through strategic effort, not innate ability. It also expands students' metacognitive strategy repertoires.
Teaching students about neuroscience provides a conceptual bridge connecting growth mindset and metacognition. When students understand that learning physically changes their brains, abstract concepts become concrete biological processes.
Neuroplasticity lessons should include three key elements. First, the biological fact: neural connections strengthen with repeated, effortful practice. Brain imaging studies show measurable changes in brain structure when people learn new skills. Second, the personal relevance: their brains are changing right now, in this classroom, as they engage with challenging material. Third, the strategic implication: certain types of practice (spaced, varied, effortful) produce stronger neural changes than others.
Teachers might show students brain imaging research, such as the classic London taxi driver studies by Maguire and colleagues (2000), which demonstrated hippocampal changes in drivers who memorised complex city layouts. This provides visual, scientific evidence that intensive practice changes brain structure.
Connecting plasticity to metacognition involves helping students understand that metacognitive monitoring accelerates neural change. When students actively test themselves, identify knowledge gaps, and target practice toward those gaps, they are directing their brain's rewiring more efficiently than through passive repetition. The metacognitive skill of error detection is not just useful psychologically, it is neurologically efficient.
Practical classroom applications might include "brain growth" reflections after challenging tasks. Students might note: "That was difficult, which means my brain was building new connections. I could feel myself getting better at identifying the key variables as I worked through more examples." This language explicitly links the struggle (growth mindset), the strategy (metacognitive awareness), and the biological process (neuroplasticity).
Strategic practice design informed by neuroscience includes retrieval practice, spaced repetition, and interleaved practice, all strategies with strong neurological foundations. When teachers explain why these strategies work at the neural level, students develop both metacognitive understanding of effective practice and growth mindset beliefs about their capacity to strengthen their brains through strategic effort.
Brown, Roediger, and McDaniel's research, detailed in "Make It Stick" (2014), provides accessible explanations of how different practice strategies affect neural consolidation. This research can be adapted for students: "Your brain consolidates memories better when you space out your practice. Let's design a practice schedule that takes advantage of how your brain works."
One of the most common misunderstandings in growth mindset implementation is praising "working hard" without acknowledging that strategic, focused effort matters more than time spent. This distinction is critical for integrating growth mindset and metacognition effectively.
Differentiating types of effort involves helping students recognise that not all effort is equally productive. Students need to understand three categories. First, strategic effort: focused work using effective techniques, with regular self-monitoring and strategy adjustment. Second, spinning effort: working hard but using ineffective strategies, without monitoring whether the approach is working. Third, helpless effort: persisting with an approach that clearly is not working, without seeking help or trying alternatives.
Teachers can illustrate these differences through classroom discussions: "Imagine two students studying for a vocabulary test. Student A reads the word list over and over for an hour. Student B spends 20 minutes using flashcards, testing themselves, and focusing extra practice on words they got wrong. Both worked hard, but which student used strategic effort?"
Strategy attribution training helps students attribute success and failure to specific strategies rather than general ability or effort. After completing a task, teachers ask: "Which specific strategy helped you most? What would you do differently next time? What did you learn about how you learn?"
This shifts internal dialogue from "I am good at this" or "I tried hard" to "The strategy I used worked well" or "I need a different approach next time." Research by Robertson (2000) found that students trained to make strategy attributions showed greater persistence and more effective self-regulation than those trained to make effort attributions alone.
Effort calibration involves helping students recognise when effort is sufficient, insufficient, or excessive. Some students with fixed mindsets believe that needing to work hard means they lack ability. Others with poorly calibrated growth mindsets believe any amount of effort should produce results. Metacognitive self-monitoring helps students assess whether their current effort level is appropriate for the task difficulty and their current skill level.
Teachers might provide effort calibration guidance: "For this type of task, you should expect to need about three practice attempts before it feels comfortable. If you are still struggling after five attempts, that is useful information, it means you should try a different strategy or seek help, not just try harder with the same approach."
Success analysis matters as much as error analysis. When students succeed, teachers should prompt metacognitive reflection on which strategies contributed: "You did well on this task. What did you do to prepare? Which parts of your preparation were most helpful? What will you do again next time?"
This builds metacognitive awareness of effective strategies whilst reinforcing that success comes from strategic, controllable actions rather than fixed ability. It also helps students build a repertoire of proven strategies they can deploy in future.
Structured reflection practices help students develop resilience by transforming setbacks into learning information rather than ability judgments. This reflection must be both metacognitive (focused on strategies and thinking processes) and mindset-supportive (framed around growth and capability development).
Three-part reflection protocol provides a consistent structure. First, What did I do? (Describe the strategies and approaches used). Second, What happened? (Note the outcome and any difficulties encountered). Third, What will I do next? (Plan specific strategic adjustments based on what was learned).
This protocol embeds both metacognitive awareness (monitoring strategies and outcomes) and growth orientation (focus on future improvement rather than dwelling on past performance). It also provides a concrete alternative to rumination, students process setbacks actively rather than passively worrying about them.
Failure-forward language involves teaching students productive ways to talk about difficulties. Instead of "I failed," students might say "I have not succeeded yet with this approach" or "This attempt gave me information about what I need to work on." This language is not merely euphemistic, it is metacognitively accurate. A single unsuccessful attempt is data about strategy effectiveness, not a definitive judgment of capability.
Teachers model this language consistently: "This essay shows me you have not yet mastered topic sentences, so that is what we will work on next" rather than "This essay is poor." The subtle shift from evaluating the student to evaluating the work and identifying specific growth targets makes a significant psychological difference.
Challenge logs provide a structured way for students to document their growth through difficulties. Students keep a record of challenges they have overcome, noting what strategies they used and how they felt at different stages. Over time, these logs become personalised evidence that persistence and strategy adjustment lead to breakthrough.
A challenge log entry might read: "Week 1: Could not solve multi-step equations, felt frustrated. Week 2: Learned to break problems into steps and check each one, started getting some right. Week 3: Can now solve most multi-step equations if I work carefully. Next challenge: word problems." This documented progression provides powerful counter-evidence to fixed mindset beliefs during future struggles.
Normalising struggle involves creating classroom cultures where difficulty is expected and valued. Teachers might share their own learning challenges and strategy adjustments: "When I was learning to use this software, I got confused by the interface at first. I found that writing down the steps as I went helped me remember the sequence. What strategies have you found helpful when learning something new?"
Research by Boaler (2016) on mathematical mindsets demonstrated that classrooms where struggle was normalised and valued showed higher achievement and engagement than classrooms where fluency was emphasised and struggle was seen negatively.
Self-assessment and metacognitive monitoring can paradoxically reinforce fixed mindset beliefs if not handled carefully. When students reflect on their learning and identify weaknesses, they need frameworks for interpreting those weaknesses as areas for growth rather than evidence of limitation.
Fixed mindset triggers in reflection occur when students use metacognitive awareness to confirm negative self-beliefs. A student might think: "I can see exactly where I went wrong, and I always make the same mistakes. This proves I am just not good at mathematics." The metacognitive accuracy (recognising patterns in errors) combines with fixed mindset interpretation (seeing patterns as evidence of unchangeable traits).
Teachers need to anticipate and address these triggers explicitly. When introducing self-assessment, they might say: "When you notice patterns in your learning, that is useful information about which skills to work on next, not proof that you cannot improve. Everyone has different starting points and different areas that require more practice."
Reframing self-assessment language helps students interpret metacognitive observations through a growth lens. Teachers can provide sentence stems that embed both metacognitive awareness and growth orientation:
These stems acknowledge reality (metacognitive accuracy) whilst framing it developmentally (growth mindset).
Separating performance from capacity involves helping students distinguish between current performance (which fluctuates and depends on many factors including strategy use) and underlying capacity (which can develop over time). A student who performs poorly on a test might reflect: "My performance on this test was weak because I used an ineffective study strategy. My capacity to understand this material can develop if I use more effective strategies."
This distinction is metacognitively sophisticated and essential for maintaining growth mindset during difficulties. Without it, students conflate temporary performance with permanent ability.
Strategy-focused feedback from teachers reinforces this healthy interpretation of metacognitive awareness. When providing feedback, teachers should emphasise what students did strategically and what they might do differently, rather than evaluating their general ability or knowledge level.
Effective feedback might say: "You provided examples for your first two points but not your third. Adding an example there would strengthen your argument. Try listing your examples before you start writing next time." This feedback identifies specific strategic actions (metacognitive focus) and implies capability to improve (growth mindset).
Research by Dweck and colleagues (2007) found that feedback emphasising strategy and process ("You tried hard and used a good strategy") produced better outcomes than feedback emphasising either ability ("You are smart") or effort alone ("You tried hard").
Growth mindset and metacognitive capacity both develop across childhood and adolescence, requiring differentiated teaching approaches at different ages. Younger children need more concrete, scaffolded support, whilst adolescents can engage with more abstract metacognitive analysis.
Primary school ages (5-7 years): Young children can grasp basic growth mindset concepts through concrete examples and stories. Their metacognitive capacity is emerging but limited. Effective approaches include:
Using physical brain growth metaphors: "Your brain is like a muscle that gets stronger when you use it." Simple reflection prompts: "What was tricky about that? What helped you?" Modelling basic self-monitoring: "I am checking my work to see if I made any mistakes." Public recognition of strategy use: "I noticed you tried three different ways to solve that problem. Smart thinking!"
At this age, avoid abstract discussions of thinking processes. Instead, make thinking visible through actions and simple language. The goal is building foundations: learning takes effort, mistakes are normal, trying different approaches is good.
Upper primary ages (8-11 years): Children in this age range can engage with more sophisticated metacognitive strategies and nuanced growth mindset discussions. Effective approaches include:
Explicit strategy instruction with reflection: teaching specific learning strategies and discussing when and why to use them. Simple goal-setting: setting achievable, strategy-focused goals with adult support. Beginning self-assessment: comparing work to clear success criteria and identifying areas for improvement. Introduction to neuroplasticity: age-appropriate explanations of how learning changes the brain.
Students at this age can begin to notice their own thinking patterns and adjust strategies with guidance. They benefit from structured reflection frameworks that make metacognitive processes explicit without overwhelming them.
Secondary school ages (12-18 years): Adolescents can engage with abstract metacognitive concepts and understand complex relationships between effort, strategy, and achievement. They can also hold more nuanced growth mindset beliefs, recognising that abilities develop at different rates in different domains. Effective approaches include:
Sophisticated strategy analysis: comparing multiple strategies, evaluating effectiveness, and making strategic choices independently. Complex goal-setting and planning: setting long-term goals, breaking them into steps, and adjusting plans based on progress monitoring. Deep reflection on thinking processes: analysing thought patterns, identifying unproductive beliefs, and consciously reframing mindset. Discussion of neuroscience research: engaging with actual studies on neuroplasticity and learning.
Adolescents particularly benefit from understanding the research foundations of growth mindset and metacognition. Presenting evidence from psychological and neuroscientific research validates these concepts for students who might otherwise dismiss them as motivational platitudes.
Challenges across ages: Fixed mindset beliefs often strengthen during early adolescence as students become more self-conscious and socially comparative. Metacognitive skills can decline if not explicitly maintained, as content demands increase and students fall back on less sophisticated strategies. Teachers need to revisit and reinforce both concepts consistently across year groups, adapting complexity to student development.
Veenman and colleagues (2006) found that metacognitive skills do not develop automatically with age; explicit instruction is necessary at every developmental stage. Similarly, mindset beliefs are shaped by ongoing experiences and messages, not fixed at a particular age. Consistent, age-appropriate instruction in both areas across a student's educational journey produces the strongest outcomes.
Assessing growth mindset and metacognition simultaneously requires multiple measurement approaches, as both constructs involve beliefs, behaviours, and skills that manifest differently across contexts.
Mindset assessment typically uses self-report questionnaires asking students to rate agreement with statements like "You have a certain amount of intelligence, and you really cannot do much to change it" versus "You can always greatly change how intelligent you are." Dweck's original Mindset Assessment Profile remains widely used, though researchers have developed more nuanced measures recognising that mindset beliefs can be domain-specific.
Limitations of mindset questionnaires include social desirability bias (students report what they believe they should think), gap between stated beliefs and enacted behaviours (what students say they believe versus how they respond to challenge), and context dependence (mindset beliefs can vary by subject area).
Metacognitive assessment uses several approaches. Self-report questionnaires like the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI) or the Junior Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (Jr. MAI for children) ask students to rate their metacognitive knowledge and regulatory skills. Think-aloud protocols involve students verbalising their thinking whilst solving problems, revealing metacognitive monitoring and control processes. Error detection tasks assess whether students can identify mistakes in their own or others' work. Learning journals provide qualitative data about students' self-awareness and strategy use over time.
Metacognitive assessment faces similar challenges to mindset assessment: self-reports may not reflect actual practice, and metacognitive behaviours can vary significantly across domains and tasks.
Combined assessment approaches provide richer data than either measure alone. Teachers might use:
Strategy use interviews: Asking students how they approached recent challenging tasks, what they did when stuck, and how they evaluated their progress. This reveals both their strategy repertoire (metacognition) and their persistence and attribution patterns (mindset indicators).
Goal-setting and review: Examining the goals students set, how specific and strategy-focused those goals are (metacognitive sophistication), and how they respond to gaps between goals and performance (mindset patterns). Students with growth mindset and strong metacognition set specific learning goals, monitor progress accurately, and adjust strategies based on feedback.
Response to feedback: Observing how students use teacher feedback provides strong evidence of both constructs. Do they read feedback carefully (metacognitive engagement)? Do they make specific strategy adjustments (metacognitive application)? Do they persist after critical feedback (growth mindset resilience)?
Academic outcome measures: Ultimately, the combined impact should appear in improved learning outcomes. Effective assessment includes:
Research by Duckworth and Yeager (2015) suggests that measuring both proximal outcomes (strategy use, persistence) and distal outcomes (achievement gains) provides the most complete picture of intervention effectiveness. Proximal outcomes confirm that students are developing the intended skills and beliefs, whilst distal outcomes demonstrate real-world impact.
Practical classroom assessment need not be overly complex. Teachers might use simple reflection prompts in learning journals: "What strategies did you use this week? Which worked well? What will you try next week?" Regular review of these reflections over time shows development of both metacognitive awareness and growth orientation.
Some schools use student conferences where students present evidence of their learning growth, discuss strategies they have found effective, and set future goals. These conferences provide rich qualitative data about students' metacognitive sophistication and mindset beliefs whilst also reinforcing both through the reflective process itself.
Mindset: Changing The Way You Think to Fulfil Your Potential View study ↗ by Carol Dweck (2006) provides the foundational research on growth mindset theory, including studies demonstrating how mindset beliefs affect achievement, motivation, and response to challenge. Dweck distinguishes between fixed and growth mindsets and explores how these beliefs are formed and can be changed. Teachers will find practical guidance on fostering growth mindset in educational settings whilst avoiding common misunderstandings that have emerged as the concept gained popularity.
Metacognition: A Closed-Loop Model of Self-Regulated Learning View study ↗ by Roebers (2017) synthesises research on metacognitive development across childhood and adolescence. The author presents a comprehensive model integrating metacognitive monitoring, control, and the feedback loops between them. This paper is particularly valuable for understanding how metacognitive skills develop and how educators can support that development through appropriate instructional approaches at different ages.
The Synergy of Motivation and Metacognition in Self-Regulated Learning View study ↗ by Dignath and Büttner (2008) presents meta-analytic evidence demonstrating that combining motivational and metacognitive instructional components produces stronger learning outcomes than either alone. The authors analyse 48 studies examining self-regulated learning interventions and find that effect sizes increase substantially when growth mindset concepts are integrated with metacognitive strategy instruction. This research provides empirical support for the integrated approach described in this article.
Neuroplasticity: Changes in Grey Matter Induced by Training View study ↗ by Draganski and colleagues (2004) provides neuroscientific evidence that intensive learning produces measurable structural brain changes in adults. Using magnetic resonance imaging, the researchers demonstrate grey matter increases in regions associated with learning during a three-month juggling training programme. This research offers concrete biological support for growth mindset concepts and helps students understand that learning physically changes the brain.
Self-Regulation Interventions with a Focus on Learning Strategies View study ↗ by Schunk and Zimmerman (2007) examines how self-regulatory skills, including both motivational beliefs and metacognitive strategies, develop through social learning processes. The authors present research demonstrating that students who receive both strategy instruction and motivational support outperform those receiving either intervention alone. Teachers will find detailed descriptions of effective instructional approaches for building self-regulated learning in classroom contexts.
