Students at the post-secondary level, specialising in academic rather than vocational subjects, may tend to focus more on the heavy demands of academic life. Workloads, deadlines and the looming MATSEC examinations may dominate their thinking.
When students begin to feel overwhelmed and pressured, neuroscientific research suggests that such chronic stress elevates their cortisol levels. They start to worry more and smile less, are more tense or irritable, and less relaxed.
Physical symptoms typically include headaches, stomach aches, irritable bowel syndrome or muscle pain.
Insights from metacognition, neuroscience and neuroplasticity show that students can learn to challenge unhelpful thinking patterns, regulate stress and strengthen both their well-being and academic resilience.
The following discussion explores common cognitive distortions in post-secondary academic life and shows how they can be reframed through metacognitive strategies to help students think more clearly, study more effectively and live more healthily during their post-secondary years.
One common cognitive distortion is ‘all-or-nothing thinking’, where experiences are seen only in extremes. For example, a low mark on a first-year essay may lead a student to conclude they are not good at the subject in question, prompting thoughts of changing subjects at the first chance. Metacognition allows students to pause and ask whether these conclusions are truly supported by evidence. They would reflect on questions such as: “Is one result enough to define my ability?” “What small, attainable goals can I set for myself to improve?” “Can I ask the teacher to guide me more?” Recognising the middle ground prevents premature and unnecessary decisions, such as changing subjects too quickly.
Another cognitive distortion is ‘overgeneralisation’, when one negative event is taken to represent an entire pattern. For example, arriving late on the first day of school due to heavy traffic may create the belief that lateness will persist the entire year. Metacognitive strategies include questioning such sweeping conclusions. By pausing to reflect on the situation, the student would realise that one late arrival due to the excessive traffic at the beginning of a scholastic year cannot be generalised to the rest of the year.
Another distortion is having a ‘mental filter’ whereby students tend to focus on the negatives and overlook the positives. Students who once struggled with a group presentation may convince themselves that they are poor at public speaking, disregarding other occasions where they contributed effectively to discussions or peer teaching. Metacognition can help by deliberately retrieving positive counterexamples. Keeping a weekly record of three achievements, however small, strengthens attention to success. Neuroscience proves that such practices promote neuroplasticity – the gradually rewiring of the brain to notice balance rather than bias.
‘Discounting the positive’ occurs when achievements are dismissed. For example, a student who receives praise for good homework may claim the feedback as merely the lecturer being polite. Here, metacognition encourages perspective-taking: “Would I dismiss this success if it were a friend’s?” Over time, consistently acknowledging positive outcomes strengthens confidence and academic progress.
Another distortion is ‘jumping to conclusions’. If peers take longer to contact a member of a group to work on an assignment together, the students in question may think they are not wanted in the group. Metacognition suggests asking: “What evidence do I have that they don’t want me? Could it be that they are overloaded with other assignments?” Such reflections reduce unnecessary stress and foster patience.
‘Catastrophising’ appears when small mistakes are exaggerated. A minor mistake may feel like a disaster. Here, metacognition involves rating the fundamental importance of the event on a scale of 1 to 10 and asking: “Will this matter next week, or in a year?” Proportional thinking ensures a balanced view of both strengths and weaknesses.
‘Emotional reasoning’ occurs when feelings are treated as facts. Anxiety before an exam may lead to the belief that “I am not going to pass”; or struggling with a topic may provoke the thought “I must be unintelligent”. Neuroscientific research shows that emotions are primarily generated in the brain’s amygdala, while the prefrontal cortex of the cerebrum governs reasoning.
Metacognition helps activate this regulatory pathway by naming the feeling, such as “I feel anxious”, rather than concluding “I am not going to pass”. This creates distance and allows recognition that while feelings signal concern, the conclusion is not necessarily true.
Finally, ‘should’ statements create rigid expectations that increase guilt. Beliefs such as “I should never struggle” place unrealistic pressure on students. Through metacognition, such language can be reframed to: “It would help me if I study thoroughly and revise my work multiple times before submission.” Study routines and effort are within one’s control, whereas perfection is not. By replacing “should” with more flexible phrasing, students relieve unnecessary pressure and foster motivation.
Cognitive distortions are a natural part of human thought. However, by developing metacognitive awareness, students can focus energy on what they can control and change, rather than on what they cannot.
Neuroscience and neuroplasticity confirm that practising thinking about thinking, and adopting coping strategies helps to strengthen the brain’s self-regulation systems, fostering resilience over time.
Josephine Ebejer Grech is a doctoral candidate specialising in the neuroscience, neuroplasticity, metacognition, well-being and academic resilience of post-secondary students.
For more education-related articles, click here. For more Child stories, follow this link.
