Shyam Barr
Helping people become better, self-regulated learners

Blog

 

PREFACE

This blog discusses topics that exist between the fields cognitive psychology and leadership, teaching and learning. Although I make connections between research and personal experience (my attempt at bridging the age-old ‘theory-practice’ gap), I write for a general audience. It is as Mihaly Csikszenmihalyi stated in the preface of his book FLOW:

“To take this step is somewhat dangerous, because as soon as one strays from the stylised constraints of academic prose, it is easy to become careless or overly enthusiastic about such a topic” (p. xi)

To avoid carelessness, I will endeavour to include references to journal articles, books and alike (as commonly expected in academic writing), but not at the expense of accessibility and ease of reading. This will be a delicate balance and one I will endeavour to achieve.

To end, I chose the word ‘discusses’ in the first sentence of this preface, to highlight that although the blog articles themselves are very much a dialogue between myself and what I read, I encourage you to share your comments and questions, so that we may start a more authentic discussion. 

 
 

When students know what to do, but don't do it: Availability vs Production deficiency in metacognition and self-regulated learning

I've been working with a school here in the ACT for a number of years. One focus of our work has been explicitly teaching students strategies they can use to better regulate their learning.

Teachers have been using my NEMO-T framework—Name, Explain, Model, Opportunity for practice, Transfer—to make strategy instruction explicit. Rather than assuming students will somehow acquire effective learning strategies along the way, teachers deliberately teach students what a strategy is, how to use it, why it is useful and when it might be appropriate.

Recently, however, the leadership team raised an interesting challenge. They were beginning to notice that some students knew the strategies. They had been taught them. They could explain them. They could demonstrate them when asked. But they weren't necessarily using them when they needed them.

That observation prompted me to revisit an important distinction in the metacognition and self-regulated learning literature: the difference between an availability deficiency and a production deficiency (Sins et al., 2025; Veenman et al., 2006). Let me explain using a metaphor.

Do you have an umbrella?

Imagine two students standing outside as the rain begins to fall.

Neither is using an umbrella. Both are getting soaked.

The first student doesn't own an umbrella.

The second student has an umbrella folded neatly inside their bag. They simply haven't taken it out. Perhaps they didn't notice it was raining hard enough. Perhaps they didn't think the umbrella would help. Perhaps getting it out seemed like too much effort. Or perhaps, in the moment, they simply forgot it was there.

From the outside, the behaviour looks identical.

No umbrella. Wet student.

But the problem underneath the behaviour is fundamentally different. The first student doesn't have the tool available (availability deficiency). The second has the tool available but isn't producing it when it is needed (production deficiency). 

Availability: Does the student have the strategy?

Students experiencing an availability deficiency do not yet possess sufficient knowledge or skill to regulate their learning effectively.

As Veenman et al. (2006) explained:

 

“Students with an availability deficiency do not have sufficient metacognitive knowledge and skills at their disposition, and metacognitive instruction has to start from scratch” (p. 9).

 

The student might not know how to plan their time, activate relevant prior knowledge, monitor their understanding, seek appropriate help, or evaluate whether a learning strategy is working.

In the umbrella metaphor, there is no umbrella in the bag.

This is where explicit strategy instruction becomes important. Sins et al. (2025) argued that students who lack the relevant SRL strategies require explicit instruction in how to perform them, including modelling the strategy and explaining how, when and why it should be used.

Production: Will the student actually use it?

Students experiencing a production deficiency have a different challenge. They know how to plan and monitor their understanding, and they can explain the strategy and demonstrate it when prompted.

In the umbrella metaphor, there is an umbrella in the bag. The problem is getting it out.

Veenman et al. (2006) described that these students have “a certain level of metacognitive knowledge and skills at their disposition, but fail to use their metacognition due to task difficulty, test anxiety, lack of motivation, or their inability to see the appropriateness of metacognition in a particular situation” (p. 10).

Recognising a production deficiency is important, as further explicit teaching isn't necessarily the answer.

Indeed, Sins et al. (2025) suggested that repeating explicit instruction for students experiencing a production deficiency may provide redundant information and potentially demotivate them. Instead, these students may benefit more from prompts or hints that draw attention to when and why they should use strategies they already possess.

So, rather than asking, How do I teach this student the strategy?, you might ask, What will help this student recognise when to use the strategy independently?

Your instructional stance can then gradually shift from direct instruction towards coaching. Rather than saying, “Use the planning strategy we learned yesterday,” you might ask, “What might help you approach this task?” Over time, even that prompt can fade.

This gradual release matters. Veenman et al. (2006) argued for prolonged metacognitive training that supports the smooth and sustained application of metacognitive activity. The destination isn’t simply a student who knows a strategy; it’s a student who recognises when a strategy is needed and independently chooses to use it.

Or, to return to the metaphor: teaching someone what an umbrella is and how to open it isn’t enough. Eventually, we want them to look at the clouds and reach into the bag themselves.

Before teaching more, diagnose the problem

When you observe that a student isn't planning, monitoring or strategically regulating their learning, you can't diagnose the problem from the behaviour alone.

Two students can appear to have exactly the same difficulty while requiring fundamentally different support. One may need explicit strategy instruction. The other may already possess the strategy but need prompting, greater motivation, or support recognising when and why to use it.

This is why assessment matters.

Interestingly, Sins et al. (2025) developed a 17-item questionnaire specifically designed to distinguish between students' availability and production of SRL strategies in upper-primary inquiry-based science. At its simplest, the questionnaire asks two different questions: Do you know how to do this? and How often do you actually do this?

The instrument itself is specific to upper-primary inquiry-based science, so I wouldn't suggest adopting it across contexts. But the diagnostic principle is useful.

When a student isn't using an effective learning strategy, ask yourself:

Is the umbrella missing—or is it simply staying in the bag?

Because until you know the answer, you don't really know what to teach next.


References

Sins, P. H. M., Klaver, L. T., de Brouwer, J., Eysink, T. H. S., & van Dijk, A. M. (2025). Measuring availability and production of primary students' self-regulated learning strategies during inquiry-based science education. Psychology in the Schools, 62, 5080–5099. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.70065

Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0

Shyam Barr