Does teaching metacognitive strategies in schools improve students' literacy and numeracy?

What does 'metacognition' actually look like in a classroom?

Metacognition is simply thinking about your own thinking. In a reading lesson, it might mean a student pausing to ask, 'Do I understand this paragraph?' and then deciding to reread or look up a word. In math, it could mean planning how to tackle a word problem, checking the answer, and reflecting on what went wrong. These are not extra subjects; they are habits of mind that teachers can model and students can practice.

A qualitative study of high-performing secondary classrooms in Vietnam found that most teachers in those classrooms used five concrete metacognitive teaching moves: explicitly teaching strategies, having students verbalize their thinking, integrating assessment into lessons, providing consistent practice, and maintaining a positive learning environment [4]. The study did not measure literacy or numeracy scores, so it cannot show that these strategies caused higher learning—only that they were present in classrooms where students were more engaged.

Does it improve reading?

For elementary students, a systematic review of studies published between 2020 and 2025 found that metacognitive approaches—organized around planning, monitoring, and evaluation—consistently enhanced reading skills and helped students become more reflective and independent learners [3]. The review covered multiple primary studies, so the consistency across them is notable, though the abstract does not report effect sizes or the number of students involved.

For middle school students, a theoretical paper argues that metacognitive strategies can improve reading comprehension in both native and foreign languages, regardless of age [1]. However, that paper develops a framework rather than reporting new student outcomes, so it supports the idea that the strategies are promising but does not by itself prove they work in a typical classroom.

A descriptive study of Grade 7 students found a strong correlation between how much students used metacognitive strategies and their reading readiness—their phonological awareness, vocabulary, and grammar [5]. But it found no significant correlation between metacognitive strategy use and students' actual reading level. The authors suggest that other factors, such as fluency, motivation, and text difficulty, may more strongly determine reading level. This is a useful caution: metacognition may prepare students to read better without being the main driver of their current reading placement.

What about numeracy and math?

The evidence for math is thinner but positive. A quasi-experiment with seventh-grade students in Indonesia tested a combination of Realistic Mathematics Education—an approach that starts with real-world problems—and metacognitive strategies [2]. The researchers found that this combined approach improved students' mathematical literacy and their 'adversity quotient' (their resilience when facing difficult problems) compared with a more conventional scientific approach. The result was statistically significant at the 5% level, and the 95% confidence interval indicated the combined approach was better on average.

Because the study bundled metacognitive strategies with a specific math teaching method, it cannot isolate how much of the improvement came from metacognition alone. Still, it is consistent with the reading evidence: teaching students to plan, monitor, and evaluate their work appears to support better performance when embedded in subject instruction.

What makes metacognitive teaching more likely to help?

The strategies that show up across these studies share a pattern: they are explicit, practiced regularly, and woven into ordinary lessons rather than taught as a separate unit. The Vietnam study describes teachers naming the strategy, having students say their thinking aloud, and building assessment into the lesson [4]. The elementary review emphasizes planning, monitoring, and evaluation as recurring stages [3].

The Grade 7 study adds a practical note: planning was the least-practiced metacognitive strategy among the students surveyed, even though it is a core part of the approach [5]. That suggests a simple starting point for schools—if students are not already planning before they read or solve problems, teaching them to do so may be a useful first step. The same study's finding that metacognition correlated with reading readiness but not reading level also implies that schools should not expect metacognitive instruction alone to move every student's reading score; pairing it with vocabulary, fluency, and motivation support may be more realistic.

Sources used in this answer

Related research questions