Discussing Potential Emotions in Advance¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 2 claims (1 for, 1 against) · 4 studies (3 review, 1 theoretical), q2–q3 · 0 of 4 report an effect size

Description¶

This strategy involves explicitly naming and discussing the emotions learners are likely to experience during an upcoming task, challenge, or transition — before they encounter it. The instructor might say, "When you hit a bug you can't fix, you'll probably feel frustrated — that's normal, and here's what to do." Learners may also generate their own predictions and coping plans, converting anticipated emotional experience into a rehearsed regulation strategy rather than an in-the-moment crisis.

Design Implications¶

Anticipating emotions is a form of implementation-intention-style preparation: if-then plans ("if I feel overwhelmed, then I'll break the problem into steps") are more effective than vague goals for regulating behavior [~M]. Pre-discussion also normalizes emotional responses, reducing the threat appraisal that undermines working memory and persistence under stress [~M], and supports self-monitoring by giving learners a vocabulary for noticing their own states Self-monitoring improves self-regulation. [+M].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Instructor knowledge of the task's actual emotional profile (where frustration, anxiety, or excitement typically arise)
• A safe climate where emotions can be named without stigma (Check-Ins build this over time)
• Concrete regulation strategies attached to each anticipated emotion, not just labeling
• Follow-through: revisiting the predictions after the task to compare and refine

Constraints¶

• Naming negative emotions without providing coping strategies can amplify anxiety rather than reduce it [~M] — prediction alone is not preparation
• Overly dramatic warnings ("this will be really hard") can induce stereotype-threat-like performance anxiety and depress persistence Self-efficacy predicts academic persistence. [-M]
• Less effective when the emotional experience is genuinely idiosyncratic; instructor-predicted emotions may not match learners' actual responses
• Requires time that competes with content coverage; in short sessions it is often the first thing cut

Implementation Variability¶

• Instructor-led briefing: teacher names likely emotions and models coping moves (fastest; works for large groups)
• Learner prediction: students forecast their own emotional responses, then debrief accuracy afterward — builds metacognitive accuracy over time
• Peer discussion: pairs or small groups share anticipated feelings and coping ideas, drawing on peers' prior experience
• Written pre-mortem: learners write "what will frustrate me, and my plan for it" before high-stakes tasks like exams or performances

Target Learners¶

• Novices facing unfamiliar challenge types (first lab, first peer critique, first public presentation), who lack a library of past emotional episodes to draw on [~M]
• Learners with low self-efficacy, for whom normalizing struggle protects persistence Self-efficacy predicts academic persistence. [+M]
• Younger learners still developing emotion vocabulary and regulation capacity [~W]
• Less necessary for experienced learners who have already encountered the task's emotional profile

Target Learning Goals¶

• Self-regulation: building anticipatory coping strategies rather than reactive ones
• Persistence: reframing struggle and frustration as expected, survivable parts of learning
• Metacognition: improving learners' ability to predict and monitor their own affective states
• Social-emotional learning: expanding emotion vocabulary and empathy for peers' responses

Instructions¶

1. Identify the emotional hot spots of the upcoming task — where confusion, frustration, anxiety, or excitement typically spike (Challenge Identification)
2. Open with a brief Check-In or structured prompt asking learners to predict how they might feel at each hot spot
3. Name and normalize each anticipated emotion, connecting it to the learning value of the challenge (Cognitive Disequilibrium)
4. Attach a concrete regulation strategy to each emotion (break it down, ask a peer, take a break, reframe the error)
5. Optionally rehearse the response through Act It Out or role-play for high-stakes situations
6. After the task, debrief: compare predicted to actual emotions and refine the coping plans

Related Strategies¶

• Check-Ins — the routine practice that builds the climate and vocabulary this strategy depends on
• 'What's My Emotion?' Game Check-In — a playful format for building emotion vocabulary in younger learners
• Normalizing Error and Struggle — the broader framing work that pre-discussion of emotions supports
• Run a pre-class Scout ritual: identify 2-3 cognitive-emotional bottlenecks, prepare 1-2 interventions each, and anticipate logistical failures

Examples¶

• Before a first peer-code-review session, an instructor tells the class: "Having your code critiqued often stings at first — that's a sign you care. When you feel defensive, your job is to write down the feedback and ask one clarifying question instead of responding."
• Exam pre-mortem: students spend five minutes writing "the moment I'll most likely panic, and my if-then plan for it" before a practice exam, then compare predictions afterward.
• Responsive Classroom approaches use anticipatory conversations about transitions (moving to group work, starting a hard task) as a standard part of classroom routines (Responsive Classroom).

Key Sources¶

• Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological Inquiry, 26(1), 1–26. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2014.940781
• Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69–119. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1
• Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 315–341. doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9
• Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.