Working memory and willpower aren’t enough: metacognition and self-regulation in gifted students

Some gifted students seem to breeze through school. They retain information easily, learn quickly, and achieve high grades. Yet even these children are often referred to support professionals for help with performance anxiety, procrastination, or underachievement. Why is it that students with strong cognitive abilities can still struggle with planning, monitoring, and adjusting their own learning process? And how can we support them effectively?

This article brings together insights from two review studies on the relationship between giftedness, metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning (Cheng, 1993; Oppong, 2018). We explain what these concepts mean, how they relate to one another, and what this implies for professionals who support gifted students in developing effective learning strategies and study skills.

What is the difference between metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning?

Although these terms are often used interchangeably, metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning each refer to different aspects of the learning process. Oppong (2018) offers a clear distinction:

• Metacognition is an isolated activity: thinking about one’s own thinking. It involves planning, monitoring, and evaluating cognitive processes. A distinction is made between metacognitive knowledge (“How do I know that?”) and metacognitive skills (“How can I do that?”). A student who says while solving a math problem, “First I look at what I already know, then I choose a strategy, and if that doesn’t work, I try something else,” is giving a concrete example of metacognition in action.
• Self-regulation is a broader concept than metacognition and occurs in various individual and social contexts—not only in academic settings. It refers to the process by which someone manages their behavior, emotions, thoughts, and motivation, with a strong emphasis on self-efficacy (the belief in one’s own abilities). An example would be a student who realizes they have trouble concentrating after lunch and therefore chooses a quiet spot and puts away their phone to stay focused.
• Self-regulated learning combines both metacognition and self-regulation. It encompasses all the metacognitive and self-directed processes involved in pursuing academic learning goals. This process is goal-oriented, unfolds in distinct phases, and is specifically focused on learning. An example is a student who asks themselves, “How can I learn this?”, then independently creates a study plan, applies appropriate strategies, and reflects afterwards on what worked and what didn’t.

Although these three concepts reinforce one another, they are not automatically present—even in gifted students. In practice, we often see that a child with strong verbal abilities and a fast learning style may still struggle to maintain an overview, plan independently, or persevere when something doesn’t come easily. This is common among so-called underachievers: students with high potential that doesn’t translate into performance, often because they lack sufficient insight into or control over their own learning process.

Gifted, but not automatically metacognitively strong

Metacognition refers to being aware of and able to direct one’s own thinking process. It involves questions like: “What do I already know?”, “How should I approach this?”, and “What do I need to adjust to learn more effectively?” According to Cheng (1993), metacognition plays a key role in complex learning processes, as it enables students to actively reflect, choose strategies, and adjust them when needed.

Gifted students often demonstrate learning characteristics such as above-average working memory, high processing speed, and strong reasoning skills (Kettler, 2014). This profile is frequently associated with stronger metacognitive skills as well. Based on theoretical and empirical analyses, Cheng (1993) concludes that gifted children do indeed possess more advanced metacognitive skills than their average-ability peers. They have access to a wider range of metacognitive strategies, apply them more spontaneously and frequently, and are better able to transfer these strategies to new tasks (Oppong, 2018).

However, this does not mean that these skills develop automatically or require no further support. It is a misconception that they will simply “come naturally.” Gifted students also need to explicitly learn, practice, and apply strategies and reflective skills. Oppong (2018) emphasizes that both metacognition and self-regulation must be actively developed—even in students with high cognitive potential.

This need for support is especially pronounced in a specific group of gifted students: underachievers. Still, it’s important to note that not all underachieving gifted students struggle with self-regulation or lack insight into their learning process. Some underperform due to maladaptive beliefs about their own abilities (“I can’t do this”) or because they place little value on the task at hand (“This is pointless”).

Moreover, a lack of metacognitive skills in gifted students isn’t always easy to detect. Underachievement can go unnoticed when their performance appears average compared to their peers, even though it actually falls far below their true potential. This is especially the case when they are consistently given tasks that are not sufficiently challenging and therefore fail to engage their higher-level thinking.

The Role of Self-Regulation and Self-Regulated Learning

Self-regulation refers to the ability to consciously manage one’s own learning process: setting goals, planning, regulating motivation, applying strategies, and evaluating one’s actions. Self-regulated learning builds on this and focuses specifically on the learning process itself: it is a goal-oriented, cyclical process in which the student takes active control over their own learning by making choices, using strategies, and continuously reflecting and adjusting.

According to Oppong (2018), self-regulation is a key predictor of long-term learning success—even for gifted students. Precisely because they often learn quickly, they may develop less resilience or perseverance. They can become frustrated by mistakes or postpone tasks until they finally feel challenging enough. Without targeted support, these students risk disengaging or continuing to perform below their potential.

Self-regulation also plays a central role in the Achievement Orientation Model (AOM) developed by Siegle and McCoach (2017), but only as the third component—after two other conditions are met. First, a student must have the ability to complete a task: the potential. Next comes the motivation component, which is shaped by three key perceptions: self-efficacy (belief in one’s own abilities), goal valuation (the value the student places on the learning goal), and environmental perceptions (the extent to which the environment is seen as supportive). These perceptions are strongly influenced by the student’s social and cultural context, including the role of parents, teachers, and peers. Only when both potential and motivation are present does self-regulation come into play—the extent to which a student effectively directs their own learning and takes purposeful action.

For support professionals, this means they can contribute on two fronts. On the one hand, through environmental interventions—such as parent coaching or collaboration with teachers—to help strengthen students’ self-image and motivation. On the other hand, they can apply self-regulation-based strategies, which are recognized as valuable tools in addressing underachievement among gifted learners.

Self-regulation forms the bridge between being able, willing, and daring to learn. By fostering self-regulated learning, we not only enhance students’ learning strategies, but also their motivation, confidence, and engagement in the learning process. Especially for students whose challenges lie not in their abilities but in a lack of effective self-regulation or insight into their own learning process, support professionals, coaches, and mentors can play a key role—both in identifying these needs and in actively helping to build the necessary skills.

What does this mean for you as a support professional, study coach, or mentor?

The core message from both articles is clear: metacognitive skills and self-regulation do not develop automatically—even in students with high cognitive potential. These skills need to be explicitly taught, practiced, and guided.

An important principle in this process is scaffolding: providing temporary, tailored support that aligns with the student’s current level. Oppong (2018) connects this to Vygotsky’s theory of the zone of proximal development (ZPD)—the space between what a student can do independently and what is still out of reach. Within this zone lie tasks that are achievable with help.

Scaffolding means offering just enough support to move the student forward, without taking over the thinking process. This can involve asking targeted questions (prompting), providing structure, planning together, or giving feedback on reflection. As the student begins to make sense of new knowledge or develops, tests, adjusts, and confirms new skills—either independently or with assistance—their ZPD gradually shifts. Dialogue plays a key role in this process, as it creates space for this temporary, goal-oriented support to take place.

A beautiful illustration of this comes from physicist Isidor Rabi. When asked how he became a scientist, he answered: “Because my mother never asked me what I learned at school. She always asked, ‘Did you ask a good question today?’” That emphasis on curiosity, reflection, and the development of thoughtful questions is exactly what fuels self-regulated learning.

Some practical guidance strategies:

• Explore learning habits together: Have a conversation about how the student typically approaches tasks. What already works? Where do things go wrong? Use a “learning biography” in which they describe how they learn in their own words.
• Work in short cycles: Guide students through setting a concrete goal, selecting an appropriate strategy, and reflecting briefly afterwards. This can be done one-on-one or in small groups.
• Use visual tools: Incorporate planners, reflection cards, step-by-step plans, or self-monitoring charts. Ensure that the student remains in control of the process.
• Practice failing and feedback: Offer tasks that you know won’t be successful on the first try. Support the student in dealing with frustration and in finding alternative strategies.
• Teach thinking about thinking: Introduce metacognitive prompts like “How do you know that?”, “What did you do when it got difficult?”, “What would be another way to approach this?”
• Use models and examples: Show how others approach a problem and invite students to compare strategies. Encourage them to make their choices explicit.
• Allow time for reflection: Build in time for self-evaluation after each session. Let the student identify what worked, what was challenging, and what they would do differently next time.

Conclusion

Gifted students benefit not only from additional academic challenge, but also from support in how they learn. Metacognition, self-regulation, and self-directed learning are not automatic skills—they are developable competencies. By intentionally focusing on these areas, support professionals can play a key role in strengthening resilience, self-awareness, and autonomy in gifted children, adolescents, and young adults.

References

• Cheng, P.-w. (1993). Metacognition and Giftedness: The State of the Relationship. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(3), 105-112.
• Kettler, T. (2014). Critical thinking skills among elementary school students: Comparing identified gifted and general education student performance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(2), 127-136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986214522508
• Oppong, E., Shore, B. M., & Muis, K. R. (2018). Clarifying the Connections Among Giftedness, Metacognition, Self-Regulation, and Self-Regulated Learning: Implications for Theory and Practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(2), 102-119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986218814008
• Siegle, D., McCoach, D. B., & Roberts, A. (2017). Why I believe I achieve determines whether I achieve. High Ability Studies, 28(1), 59-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2017.1302873

Copyright © 2025 Dr. Sabine Sypré – All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission from the author. Sharing online is permitted provided the author is credited and a link to this article is included.