Identifying Obstacles¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 2 claims (1 for, 1 mixed) · 4 studies (2 causal, 2 quant-synthesis), q3–q4 · 2 of 4 report an effect size

Description¶

Identifying obstacles is a self-regulatory strategy in which learners systematically anticipate the challenges — gaps in knowledge, skills, resources, time, or motivation — that could block progress toward a goal. It is typically carried out through structured reflection (e.g., listing barriers, "premortem" analysis, or mental contrasting) and paired with concrete if-then plans for overcoming each anticipated barrier. The strategy converts vague optimism about a goal into a realistic implementation plan.

Design Implications¶

Anticipating obstacles is most effective when it is tied to specific response plans rather than left as open-ended worry. Implementation intentions — "if situation X arises, I will do Y" — reliably increase goal attainment by delegating action control to anticipated cues Gollwitzer & Sheeran's meta-analysis found medium-to-large effects of if-then planning on goal attainment. [+S]. Mental contrasting, which pairs a positive visualization of goal attainment with a deliberate inventory of present obstacles, outperforms positive fantasizing alone, which can actually reduce effort [~S]. The strategy draws on Self-Regulated Learning: obstacle identification is the forethought-phase step that makes monitoring and strategy adjustment during performance possible.

Context¶

Requirements¶

• A clearly specified goal; obstacle identification is meaningless against vague intentions
• A structured prompt or template (barrier list, premortem, if-then planning sheet) — unstructured "think about problems" prompts produce diffuse anxiety rather than plans
• Follow-through structures such as Coaching or Check-Ins to revisit and revise the obstacle plan as conditions change

Constraints¶

• Overemphasis on obstacles without paired planning produces paralysis and avoidance rather than preparation [-M]; the planning component, not the identification component, carries the benefit
• Learners with low self-efficacy may interpret the exercise as confirmation that the goal is unattainable [~M]
• Many obstacles are unforeseeable; a plan built only on anticipated barriers fails under genuine surprise and must be paired with adaptive responses
• Excessive barrier enumeration consumes working memory and attention that could go to the task itself Cognitive overload degrades learning. [~M]

Implementation Variability¶

• Premortem (Klein, 2007): learners assume the project has failed and generate the reasons why — a prospective hindsight technique that increases the number of identified risks
• Mental contrasting with implementation intentions (MCII): structured wish–outcome–obstacle–plan sequence (Oettingen, 2014)
• Pre-mortem-lite for novices: teacher supplies a common-obstacle checklist learners mark against their own plan, reducing the expertise demands of anticipation
• Retrospective variant: after a completed project, learners identify which obstacles they failed to anticipate, building the anticipation skill itself over time

Target Learners¶

• Adolescents and adults pursuing self-directed goals (coursework, projects, career transitions); effects of if-then planning are robust across these populations [+S]
• Learners prone to optimistic planning bias, who systematically underestimate time and difficulty
• Less suitable, without heavy scaffolding, for young children or novices who lack the domain knowledge to anticipate which obstacles matter [~W]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Self-regulation and metacognitive planning: forethought-phase skill in Self-Regulated Learning
• Project and inquiry skills: realistic scoping of extended work
• Transferable executive function: anticipating consequences and preparing conditional responses

Instructions¶

1. Specify the goal concretely — outcome, timeframe, and success criteria (see Advance Organizers for framing the task structure).
2. Generate obstacles: list what could block progress — knowledge gaps, resource limits, competing commitments, predictable failure points. A Challenge Identification prompt or premortem works well here.
3. For each significant obstacle, form an if-then plan: "If [obstacle cue], then I will [specific action]." Vague intentions ("work harder") do not produce the cue-based action control that makes the strategy effective [+S].
4. Surface misconceptions and false assumptions by testing the plan against a contrasting case or peer critique — Cognitive Conflict or Case Studies expose obstacles learners did not anticipate.
5. Revisit the obstacle plan at Check-Ins during execution; revise plans for obstacles that materialized differently than expected, and log unanticipated ones for future planning.

Related Strategies¶

• Goal Setting — obstacle identification presupposes a specified goal; the two form a single planning cycle
• Premortem Analysis — a specific, high-yield technique for step 2
• Self-Monitoring — the enactment-phase counterpart that detects obstacles as they arise
• Investigate potential barriers to implementation and replication when documenting a successful program
• Use premortem analysis before implementing a reform to surface success factors and roadblocks
• Plan for possible points of infrastructuring, including breakdowns and anticipation work

Examples¶

• MCII in schools: Oettingen's mental-contrasting curricula have students name their wish, visualize the best outcome, identify their biggest internal obstacle, and write an if-then plan — improving effort and grades relative to positive-thinking-only controls.
• Engineering capstone premortem: before build phase, teams write "the project failed because…" narratives, then convert the top three causes into risk-mitigation tasks.
• Writing process planning: a student anticipating "I'll lose momentum on sources" writes "If I go two days without drafting, then I will freewrite for 15 minutes from my outline before opening any new sources."

Key Sources¶

• Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54(7), 493–503. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.493
• 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
• Oettingen, G. (2014). Rethinking positive thinking: Inside the new science of motivation. Penguin.
• Klein, G. (2007). Performing a project premortem. Harvard Business Review, 85(9), 18–19.
• Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2