Introducing the Teaching Metacognition™ Framework:

Introducing the Teaching Metacognition™ Framework

 A framework for developing motivated, self-regulated, and autonomous learners

By Allison Navas, PhD & Jillian Conry, PhD

July 2026

Over the past several years, we have been interested in better understanding how metacognition relates to higher-order thinking and student motivation. The Teaching Metacognition™ Framework represents our attempt to operationalize several complementary bodies of research into observable learner behaviors that educators can track, explicitly teach, and revisit over time. 

The framework draws from research on metacognition (Flavell,1979), self-regulated learning (Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman, 1989, 2000), executive functioning (Miyake et al., 2000; Diamond, 2013), and motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Although these fields approach learning from different perspectives, they share an interest in how learners increasingly manage, monitor, and regulate their thinking and learning. Recent research has highlighted the need to better understand the dynamic relationships among executive functions, metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning rather than examining these constructs only in isolation (Theobald et al., 2026). 

The accompanying Teaching Metacognition™ Educator Survey was developed as one application of this framework. The survey explores the relationship between higher-order thinking, learner motivation patterns, metacognitive skills, and student engagement. We are interested in understanding whether students who more consistently demonstrate metacognitive behaviors are also better able to engage in complex thinking and become increasingly self-regulated learners.

Take the survey here and tell us which strategy you most want to work on with your staff or students

The framework and survey are organized around the following areas:

1. Higher-Order Thinking and Transfer Skills

2. Metacognitive Skills

   1. Goal Setting and Strategic Planning

   2. Task Initiation

   3. Monitoring and Reflection

3. Pivoting and Adapting

4. Sustained Attention and Task Management

5. Motivation and Engagement

There is no expectation that you currently use or explicitly teach these skills. The framework is intended as a tool for reflection, conversation, and professional learning. We hope it helps educators identify strengths, challenges, and opportunities for growth within their classroom, team, or school.

For each question, consider your students as a whole and their ability to independently perform the described behavior during typical learning activities. Rate how frequently the majority of students demonstrate each behavior. If students are not yet able to complete a behavior successfully without significant teacher support, the appropriate response will generally be “Rarely.”

Your responses will help inform future professional learning, resources, publications, and continued refinement of the Teaching Metacognition™ Framework. Any identifying information will be removed before findings are shared or published.

Participation is voluntary.

If you would like to receive your individual results and learn about future resources and findings, we encourage you to complete the Google Form version of the survey. That version automatically collects email addresses solely so we can send participants their results and share future updates.

If you prefer not to share your email address or have your responses automatically tabulated, you are welcome to use the downloadable PDF version instead.

We hope this framework supports meaningful conversations about student learning and provides educators with practical ways to make metacognition more visible, more explicit, and more teachable.

The Teaching Metacognition™ Framework and Teaching Metacognition™ Educator Survey may be used and shared for educational and professional learning purposes. Please do not modify, reproduce for commercial purposes, or create derivative works without written permission from Team Metacognition, LLC.

When using or referencing this framework or survey, please cite:

Conry, J., & Navas, A. G. (2026). Teaching Metacognition™ Educator Survey. Team Metacognition, LLC. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfyaajGeYBZXU7VQ0p_EAamEleD6v6neOUOTgA1y67MO6W5Rg/viewform?usp=header

Navas, A. G., & Conry, J. (2026). Introducing the Teaching Metacognition™ Framework. Team Metacognition, LLC. https://www.teammetacognition.com/post/introducing-the-teaching-metacognition-framework

www.teammetacognition.com

Contact:

startnow@teammetacognition.com

References

Conry, J., & Navas, A. G. (2026). Teaching Metacognition™ Educator Survey. Team Metacognition, LLC. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfyaajGeYBZXU7VQ0p_EAamEleD6v6neOUOTgA1y67MO6W5Rg/viewform?usp=header

Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906

Navas, A. G., & Conry, J. (2026). Introducing the Teaching Metacognition™ Framework. Team Metacognition, LLC. https://www.teammetacognition.com/post/introducing-the-teaching-metacognition-framework

Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49–100. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50043-3

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Theobald, M., Kerner auch Koerner, J., Breitwieser, J., Buhr, L., Karbach, J., Könen, T., Nobbe, L., Reinelt, T., Schaaf, M., Schmiedek, F., Wieland, L. M., & Blume, F. (2026). Executive functions, metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning—What are we talking about? A review and introduction of the EMERGE model. Educational Psychology Review, 38, Article 62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-026-10157-0

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015

Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.329

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50031-7