My latest paper just published in Frontiers in Psychology!

I have spent most of my career arguing that the ability to think about your own thinking isn't just a useful academic skill. It's a fundamental mechanism of human development. Now, with the publication of my new paper in Frontiers in Psychology, you can read my case about this mechanism of neural change.
​
The paper is titled "The Neurological Implications of Metacognition," and it's open access, meaning anyone can read it for free here:

Thinking About Thinking Changes the Brain
The core argument of the paper is this: when you direct your problem-solving powers at your own problem-solving process, something remarkable happens. The brain doesn't just learn — it reorganizes.

​This isn't hand-waving. Neuroimaging research has identified specific brain networks involved in metacognitive activity, including the prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, parietal regions, and hippocampus. These aren't passive observers of your cognition. They're active participants that show experience-dependent structural change. In other words, the more you use them, the more they develop.

You've probably heard about the famous London taxi driver studies — researchers found that taxi drivers who had to memorize the entire map of London showed measurable growth in the hippocampus compared to bus drivers following fixed routes. What's easy to miss in that finding is the metacognitive dimension: navigating an entire city successfully requires constantly monitoring your confidence about routes, evaluating your decisions, and adjusting your strategies. That is metacognition in action, and it appears to be part of what drives the neural change.

What We Still Don't Know (And Why That Matters)
Presently, there are limits to the current evidence, but we know that metacognition involves specific neural networks. We know those networks show plasticity. We know that clinical and educational interventions targeting metacognitive processes produce lasting benefits. What we don't yet have are studies that directly connect explicit metacognitive training to structural brain changes with the kind of experimental rigor that would let us say definitively: this intervention reorganized these circuits.
This work needs to happen and the paper makes the case for what those studies should look like using neuroimaging protocols embedded in randomized controlled trials, with appropriate control conditions, measuring metacognitive outcomes alongside neural change.
The science is pointing in a clear direction. We just need to follow it.

Come read about what has brought me to this moment of starting an educational movement. Especially if you are a former student you should read this one.