The Unholy Trinity: Connecting the Unconnected—Systems, Strategies, and Students

Abstract

Educational reforms have increasingly shifted from teacher and content-centric approaches to prioritising the students’ needs, sometimes even extending this beyond academic success. Academic success is easily measured through standardised assessments; however, the ‘life skills’ that students require for more general success—such as self-regulation, goal-setting, and distraction control—are harder to quantify and therefore harder to implement and measure. Reflecting these challenges, this paper critiques some of the more popular frameworks which schools adopt in their aim to nurture successful students for the future. Drawing comparisons with high-performance domains such as sports, where psychological characteristics and potential are actively considered and nurtured in talent development, we highlight the limitations of current offerings in education. Through discussion, we advocate for a more research-grounded approach to learning, equipping schools with both systems and strategies for their students’ long-term life-related success.

1. Introduction

Though increasingly influenced by attainment-focused reform agendas (Ball, 2003), schools still aspire to design the most efficacious learning environments for their pupils. Definitions of success are far from straightforward, however (Schrader & Lawless, 2004). These definitions are often shaped by the priorities of education systems, policy agendas, or school cultures, and are often narrow or oversimplified. Many of the frameworks that schools turn to aim to support the development of academic success, but they frequently fall short when it comes to promoting and developing those attitudes and behaviours that underpin longer-term life achievement. By contrast, other high-performance domains are purposefully placing greater emphasis on recognising and nurturing characteristics associated with broader forms of success, rather than single instances of performance (Collins et al., 2016; Holt & Dunn, 2004). Accordingly, this paper considers whether research and evidence from alternative domains could support schools in preparing students for the wider demands of their futures.

This review explores whether research from psychology, particularly sports psychology and high-performance environments, can inform a more holistic understanding of student success. We propose that reconceptualising schools as talent development environments could facilitate stronger alignment between educational systems and structures, classroom practices, and the development of students’ cognitive, behavioural, and attitudinal attributes. The discussion begins by considering the purpose of education, schools, and schooling, before critically reviewing popular systems and structures commonly employed to meet these aims. We then proceed to consider what is deemed as success for students, before looking at the psychology of success as researched in other fields, identifying key psychological traits associated with long-term success. Finally, we consider how these insights might inform future empirical work in education, supporting a shift in emphasis from solely academic outcomes toward more deliberately prioritising the development of the attitudes and behaviours that will enable ongoing success throughout life.

However, before proceeding, it is important to clarify the philosophical foundations that underpin and guide the arguments presented in the paper. Pragmatism, emerging in the late 19th and early 20th centuries through thinkers such as Charles Sanders Peirce and William James, advances the view that concepts and theories should be evaluated by their practical consequences and usefulness in addressing real problems (W. James, 2008; Kloppenberg, 1996; The Peirce Edition Project, 1998). Rather than knowledge being treated as absolute truth, pragmatism views it as a tool which whose value lies in its capacity to guide effective action (W. James, 2008; Kloppenberg, 1996; The Peirce Edition Project, 1998).

More specifically, the arguments set forth in the paper are anchored in and shaped by John Dewey’s interpretation of pragmatism. Dewey extended his pragmatist orientation into education, arguing that learning should be understood as a process of growth grounded in experience, rather than the passive acquisition of abstract knowledge (Dewey, 1916; Lowery & Jenlink, 2019). Central to Dewey’s philosophy is his notion of instrumentalism; the idea that theories or frameworks should not be assessed on their internal coherence or popularity alone, but by the extent to which they help students to develop and thrive (Dewey, 1930; Lowery & Jenlink, 2019).

More specifically, Dewey proposed that schools function as microcosms of society in which students acquire the skills, habits, and values necessary for participation in a democratic society (Dewey, 1916; Lowery & Jenlink, 2019). Democracy, in this way, should be understood not only as a political system, but as a way of life cultivated through education. Rather than schools being focused on transmitting predetermined content or implementing externally imposed frameworks, they can be understood as environments that nurture broader attitudes and behaviours, alongside academic knowledge (Biesta, 2009; Dewey, 1916; Lowery & Jenlink, 2019).

Positioning schools as talent development environments reflects this Deweyan perspective. They are not simply vehicles for measurable outcomes, but dynamic spaces where the cultivation of psychosocial traits are as important as test results. In grounding this paper within a Deweyan philosophy, the following discussion does not seek to establish a single universal framework for schooling but rather to explore how schools might function as environments that cultivate the multidimensional traits students need to prosper in life.

2. The Purpose of Education

Schools’ ability to meaningfully focus on these broader matters of preparing students for learning, life, and work, has been hindered by the tendency to treat education as an exact science which can be quantitatively analysed and evaluated (Biesta, 2009). That is not to say that teachers simply deliver centrally prescribed curriculum without at least attempting to personalise it for their given context (Priestley et al., 2021). In practicality, however, they often lack the time and resources to consider the bigger picture of education (Hannaway & Hamilton, 2008; Nuthall, 2004; Shaked et al., 2017). Schools therefore frequently turn to the prevailing educational trend, often a standardised teaching and learning framework, of which there are a plethora (Marzano, 1993), such as Bloom’s Taxonomy (Krathwohl, 2002), Visible Learning (Hattie, 2012), and SOLO Taxonomy (Biggs & Collis, 1989) to name but a few. These, of course, have varying impact, as we will show later.

In response to such limitations, many policymakers have turned their attention to the pupil, reframing education as a process centred on learning rather than teaching (Biesta, 2009; Hannaway & Hamilton, 2008; Hattie, 2012; Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2013; Priestley et al., 2021). This is arguably a step in the right direction, but with the aforementioned constraints, schools are still looking for a quick fix that will prove to stakeholders that they are, indeed, a student-centric institution (Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2013; Priestley et al., 2021). Thus, while many educational frameworks are available, schools too often adopt them in their entirety and from the top down, rather than working ‘upwards’ from the needs and realities of their students (Shaked et al., 2017). While it is likely that this is the intention of the developers of frameworks in order to achieve the claimed benefits, it ironically overlooks a fundamental question: what does a successful student actually look like? As Aristotle said, ‘If we have a mark to aim at, we are more likely to hit upon the right thing; and, if that is so, we must try to comprehend, at least in outline, what it is.’ (Aristotle & Burnet, 1903, p. 14). So, what are we aiming for in education?

This is potentially where things become more difficult as, unlike many other domains, there is no succinct answer to what the purpose of education is. Certainly, more quantifiable measures such as exam results are often used to prove that the education in one school is better than another. School and pupil performance data is a powerful and marketable tool, particularly for those in the private sector. Accordingly, reinforcing the notion that good learning must be based on exam knowledge and skills. However, this declaration is questionable as there is no acknowledgement of attitude and behaviour and how they impact the learning and teaching process. Experientially at least (Nuthall, 2004), all teachers know learning is more than simply acquiring and reproducing knowledge. However, psychosocial attributes are far more difficult to measure (Blazar & Kraft, 2017; Schrader & Lawless, 2004). Moreover, most teachers would concur that exam results should not be the sole or, perhaps, even the majority focus of schooling; education is more broadly about what helps one prosper in life (Biesta, 2009; Cigman, 2012; Kelly, 2009; Priestley & Biesta, 2013). Perhaps most poignantly, research indicates that attaining good grades does not equate to life satisfaction (Feraco et al., 2023), or even later success. In the 21st century, doing well in school does not automatically mean you will secure desirable employment, nor do many people stay on a single career path (Kay, 2010). Reflecting these contentions, many parents seemingly agree that school is not just about achieving exam results (Maqsood et al., 2024). Yet studies have shown that, when faced with so many options of schools, parents often lack the domain or metacognitive knowledge to select a school that aligns with their beliefs (Cash & Oppenheimer, 2024). Consequently, schools increasingly focus on what makes them marketable, rather than what they might understand is right for the pupil (Kay, 2010).

It is interesting, that while there is seemingly a lack of confidence in schools to look beyond exam results to what makes a ‘good’ student, other domains such as sports have been paying more attention to what the difference is between ‘Super Champions, Champions, and Almosts’ (Collins et al., 2016). Winning a match or a gold medal could be likened to school exam results, but while schools focus on this being a result of knowledge, sports are framing success as a result of deeper psychological traits such as discipline, commitment, and resilience (Holt & Dunn, 2004). Schools, therefore, might be more usefully considered talent development environments where emphasis is not solely on final performance, but on cultivating the traits that underpin it. Interestingly, these ideas have already been demonstrated in education although, unfortunately, the implications seem to still await wider-spread recognition and applications (Senko, 2019). In essence, while schools are still focusing on an easily measurable end result, other fields are becoming more evidence-grounded and considering the mechanisms, specifically psychological characteristics, that confer an advantage and increased likelihood of success—their ‘psychobehaviours’ (Button, 2011).

While this multidimensional approach is more complex, it is certainly more comprehensive, and research suggests that it can predict performance in different situations (Schrader & Lawless, 2004). The embedding of knowledge in addition to attitudinal and behavioural skills, and the evaluation of all three, is essential (Lingard et al., 2021; Priestley & Biesta, 2013; Schrader & Lawless, 2004). Without such a model, interventions will remain too situational and therefore often immeasurable (Schrader & Lawless, 2004). Consequently, teachers need to be equipped to understand, execute, and exploit the right mechanisms and methods within the right structures and systems, to nurture students to reach their potential, not merely experience a standardised framework or curriculum.

Having established the need for a more comprehensive approach to education in schools, one that integrates knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours, the next section explores the systems and structures within schools that either support or constrain these ambitions. While many schools aspire to nurture the broader development of their pupils, such goals are often shaped, or at times limited, by the frameworks they implement.

3. Systems and Structures

If schools are tasked with fostering the behaviours and attitudes that will enable pupils to succeed in an ever-changing society (Lingard et al., 2021; Shaked et al., 2017), achieving such a broader vision demands more than pedagogical tweaks. Structures too often hold back strategy, as they are designed to be static, whilst strategies are best designed to adapt to an everchanging external environment (Chandler, 1990; Shaked et al., 2017). While little can be changed about government guidelines (at least by the practising teachers), and there is some limited flexibility and choice with regards to exam bodies’ expectations, schools are responsible for the systems and structures they employ to enact such policies and should take ownership of this (Shaked et al., 2017).

Some argue that school leaders are not yet knowledgeable enough about the impact of systems within schools, despite the need for them to be the expert of a specific school and its context (Shaked et al., 2017). Instead, schools often employ a multitude of different educational models, which might not even complement one another. As in business, an organisation chart is not a company (Peters & Waterman, 1982), and while these educational models are seemingly systematically sound, they do not offer the school nor institution the all-important ‘how and why’ for that particular environment.

Of course, many of the more popular structures are research-informed and/or widely tried and tested in schools. Additionally, many are founded on rationales which advocate their widespread application across educational settings. Yet, as discussed below, we suggest that despite their merits, none of them offer a definitive solution. Namely, a complete structure with integrated strategies (Shaked et al., 2017), that intertwines knowledge, behaviour, and attitude. Form should follow function (Peters & Waterman, 1982) and it is therefore vital that schools get the right strategies in place for their setting.

3.1. Educational and Developmental Learning Frameworks—Theoretical Foundations and Practical Discrepancies

There are innumerable frameworks and structures that promise to enhance student learning and development if employed by schools. For brevity and clarity, we have considered those more commonly used, and offer contrast for discussion.

3.1.1. Bloom’s Taxonomy

Bloom’s Taxonomy is one of the more popular and academic models that is widely accepted and applied in schools. While it appreciates the different entry stages of pupils’ educational journey, it still focuses on the end result and the ‘steps’ to traditional academic achievement (Krathwohl, 2002; Ormell, 1974). It not only creates a framework for teachers to scaffold within the classroom but also across subjects, introducing a common language (Seaman, 2011) which is essential for effective group action; for example, acting as a community of practice (Lave, 1991). Schools and teachers understand the development of the skills in relation to standardised testing, but its use by classroom teachers is reportedly limited (Seaman, 2011). Many teachers are guided to use Bloom’s Taxonomy in the learning objectives of their lessons, focusing on challenging students and using the ‘higher-level’ skills of cognition. However, others highlight that learning is not static, nor can you so simplistically isolate learning skills when learning is, itself, so complex (Berger, 2018; Kelly, 2009; Zaphir & Hansen, 2024). In fact, some argue that teachers themselves cannot differentiate between the different levels of cognition within the framework as these are too closely linked (Marzano, 1993). As an academic tool, it also relies on students being engaged in all lessons to appreciate the metacognitive cross-curricular skills they are developing. This is not an easy endeavour (Cents-Boonstra et al., 2021), but also not the concern of such ‘pseudo-scientific approaches’ (Kelly, 2009, p. 78). Additionally, it fails to empower students in developing personal responses to their learning (Kelly, 2009), thereby firmly establishing itself as a framework for academic achievement, rather than nurturing a mindset for broader notions of success.

3.1.2. Growth Mindset

Dweck’s ‘Growth Mindset’ theory addresses some of the issues directed at Bloom’s model, as it focuses on how developing the right mindset, i.e., an individual’s beliefs with regards to their intelligence and abilities, could engage and help them reach their full potential (Dweck, 2006). This aligns with the belief that everyone can perform at a high level (Bandura, 1991; Dewey, 1916), with clear evidence to support the hypothesis that the right mindset will result in positive outcomes (Dweck, 2006). However, critics highlight that there is no clear ‘how’ in the research (Collins & MacNamara, 2017; Yettick et al., 2016). Namely, how can teachers develop a growth mindset in their students and deploy it to improve performance? Indeed, in a reflective commentary, Dweck herself highlights the need for a ‘repertoire of approaches’ and that ‘non-academic skills are the necessary foundation for success’ (Dweck, 2015). Notably, however, she does not explicitly outline either these approaches or skills. Although other scholars reaffirm the potential and importance of ‘Growth Mindsets’ in relation to academic success (Rattan et al., 2015; Yettick et al., 2016), other research is contradictory, suggesting that the implementation of Growth Mindset strategies in schools have no positive impact, either academically or holistically (Foliano et al., 2019; Hendrick, 2019; Rienzo et al., 2015). In addition, Yeager and Dweck assert that when teachers have tried to implement interventions, these have failed as there is not yet a strong enough evidence base to guide them (Yeager et al., 2020).

3.1.3. Grit

Duckworth’s concept of ‘grit’ is a little more tangible, as it asks people to consider their long-term goals so that they have a ‘why’ when faced with adversity on their journey (Duckworth, 2017). She also created and validated a scale to test a person’s ‘grit’ (Duckworth et al., 2007; Duckworth & Quinn, 2009) with several other researchers adapting this for a variety of domains. In the original research, Duckworth notes that, while focused on academic achievement, the construct does not consider how grit relates to other variables such as self-efficacy (Duckworth et al., 2007). It also does not explore how or if someone might become ‘grittier’, simply that a person’s level of ‘grit’ is a predicter of future achievement (Park et al., 2018; Rimfeld et al., 2016). Further research did find that an environment which promoted mastery goals as opposed to performance goals did encourage ‘grittiness’ and it was essential that there was a culture which valued mastery, personal growth, and effort (Park et al., 2018). This, however, still offers a structure rather than a strategy (Clark & Malecki, 2019). A study conducted in 52 elementary schools in Istanbul, Turkey, recently evaluated the impact of interventions to encourage grit with positive results in both student mindset and academic results (Alan et al., 2019). The interventions were built into a curriculum with a combination of growth mindset, perseverance through failure, and goal-setting activities (Alan et al., 2019), suggesting that clear methods which teachers are confident in delivering can have the desired attitudinal and behavioural impact.

3.1.4. High-Performance Learning

Eyre’s research into high-performance learning also developed the idea of mindset being key to educational success (Eyre, 2016). She considered the psychology of human potential and outlined 20 ‘Advanced Cognitive Performance’ characteristics (ACPs), interwoven with 10 ‘Values, Attitudes, and Attributes’ (VAAs). This provides schools with a framework of how to become ‘world class’; however, it must be interpreted with regard to its implementation—thus still not offering a complete model for schools to employ. As with Bloom’s Taxonomy, it proposes a common language for school communities to use, an important feature for any genuine community of practice (Lave, 1991). Pragmatically, however, the vast number of terms have potential to cause cognitive overload in pupils and dilute the benefits. In addition, this model focuses once again on academic success and therefore the academic curriculum which requires students to academically engage to be exposed to the development of the ACPs and VAAs, potentially creating another problem similar to that of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Cents-Boonstra et al., 2021). Finally, while the model stems from her own research into ‘Gifted and Talented’ students (Eyre, 2003, 2006, 2007), there is little in the way of empirical studies which measure the effectiveness of the ‘High-Performance Learning’ model.

3.1.5. Penn Resiliency Programme

Interestingly, the Penn Resiliency Programme (PRP) appears to be more concerned with the methods of implementation (a curriculum), leaving the practitioner to decide on how to structure this into their institution (The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, 2025). Some assert that the effectiveness varies with the implementation, but there is evidence to suggest that the PRP does have a positive impact on alleviating the symptoms of depression and anxiety in children (Brunwasser et al., 2009; Challen et al., 2011). While this reinforces the idea that the mechanisms are more important than the system, there is little longitudinal research following participants into their later teenage years and beyond. Furthermore, the PRP aligns to a more hedonic view of wellbeing; or rather, the negation of illbeing which is often part of modern-day subjective wellbeing measures (de Vries et al., 2022). This is a seemingly noble endeavour for adults to help children; however, it contrasts with a more eudaimonic philosophical theory that subjectively happy and successful people are growth-orientated (Kiaei & Reio, 2014). That is, eudaimonic pleasure, and thus wellbeing, often arises through overcoming challenging or less enjoyable experiences (Davidson, 2012; Rudebusch, 1999). This aligns with research into deliberate practice, which has shown that meaningful improvement and long-term achievement are driven by sustained, effortful activities that are not inherently enjoyable (Ericsson et al., 1993). The World Health Organization (WHO) in fact states that ‘Mental health is a state of well-being in which an individual realizes his or her own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and is able to make a contribution to his or her community.’ (WHO, 2025). This suggests that it is important not to merely reduce the symptoms of negative emotions in children, but rather to teach them how to deal with and leverage them, using a mixture of both pleasure and pain towards the right things (Davidson, 2012).

3.1.6. Oppidan Education

A British-based mentoring firm, Oppidan Education, also aims to focus on the holistic nurturing of young people rather than purely academic success (Oppidan Education, 2023c). They also counteract the issue of time and instead of expecting the teachers to develop well-rounded young people, they place their own mentors in schools. While this solves one problem, it avoids the nurturing of a culture (Park et al., 2018) which further promotes this development. Quite apart from the disconnect between teaching of the academic subjects and a new subject focused on character, the company offers teacher career and professional development training (CPD) on their methods, which are research-based through their partnership with The Oxford Character Project (Oppidan Education, 2023a). Importantly and concerningly, however, there are no published empirical studies as to their effectiveness in this situation as The Oxford Character Project is more concerned with developing the characteristics of leadership. In addition, they introduce a system based on the work of Richard de Souza (Oppidan Education, 2023b)—an interesting choice given that his work was more practical and just focused on two high-level tennis players—and further frameworks from the Independent Schools Inspectorate, and SMSC (a citizenship programme focused on spiritual, moral, social, and cultural development) (Oppidan Education, 2022). While each individual component has valid ideas, there is no clear structure connecting them, unlike in Eyre’s High-Performance Learning model.

In summary, while each of these frameworks offer valuable ideas, they either favour predefined indicators of success, such as attainment, or do not account for the nuanced realities of specific educational settings. As a result, they risk imposing an ineffective one-size-fits-all structure on diverse student populations, with little capacity to meaningfully measure their impact on student success. In the next section, we return to our earlier discussion, suggesting that perhaps ‘reverse engineering’ may be useful. In short, an argument for a greater focus and clearer definition of the ‘end in mind’ is presented, centred on the question: what does a successful student look like?

4. Successful Students

Rather than looking at how to measure student success, should we first ask a more fundamental question: what do we mean by a ‘successful’ student? If definitions that focus on academic performance are found to be too narrow, educators might benefit from reversing the process. Rather than starting with metrics, perhaps it would be more worthwhile developing a clear vision of the kinds of individuals we hope students will become. For this reason, educators should identify the characteristics that ‘successful’ students hold for that context, then work backwards, being evidence-grounded, not evidence-based. Although a few national curricula endeavour to do this, for example the Curriculum for Excellence in Scotland and the Australian National Curriculum (Priestley & Biesta, 2013), there are still issues with a top-down approach whereby the structure is imposed, but the systems within schools and implementation in classrooms is varied (Lingard et al., 2015; Priestley et al., 2015). Other schools who are not in these countries are also unlikely to be able to implement the prescribed curriculum as they may be answerable to another.

As suggested earlier, an ‘end in mind’ approach too often leads schools to focus on the narrow data-driven successes of results (Schrader & Lawless, 2004). This is based on assumptions that students with the highest grades go on to accomplish more in life which, in turn, gives them more life satisfaction. This may stem from post-war economic hardships when it was thought that people would feel satisfaction in the knowledge that they were, in some small way, contributing to the economic progress of their country (Lingard et al., 2021). However, not only is there a weak correlation between high grades and life satisfaction (Feraco et al., 2023), but the fact that some students succeed while others do not (despite receiving the same knowledge and experiencing the same teaching approach) indicates that success is influenced by more than just academic aptitude (Hannaway & Hamilton, 2008). To understand this disparity, we must look beyond cognitive ability and examine the broader psychological and social factors involved in learning.

Over the last century, educators, researchers, and psychologists have moved away from the belief that intelligence is an innate ability; it is instead something that can be grown or nurtured (Bandura, 1991; Dewey, 1916; Dweck, 2006; Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2013; Priestley & Biesta, 2013; Zimmerman, 2008). Learning is far more complex than solely what exams measure (Schrader & Lawless, 2004; Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2013). It goes beyond core subject-specific knowledge and skills (Blazar & Kraft, 2017; Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010; Priestley & Biesta, 2013; Schrader & Lawless, 2004; Zimmerman, 2008), and should not be isolated from the outside world where there are a variety of both barriers and facilitators (Dewey, 1899; Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010; Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2013; Priestley & Biesta, 2013). Student learning is also multidimensional (Briggs, 1962; Hannaway & Hamilton, 2008), so attitudes and behaviours must also be considered and developed in this quest for future success, however it is defined (Blazar & Kraft, 2017; Kelly, 2009; Priestley & Biesta, 2013). The adage: ‘Students must Maslow before they can Bloom’ suggests schools must pay attention to the nurturing of broader, transferable skills and attributes (Feraco et al., 2023). These skills and dispositions are often undervalued in formal assessment, but are increasingly recognised as key competencies that are critical for student wellbeing and life readiness (Priestley & Biesta, 2013).

National policymakers and international bodies alike have attempted to define a core set of competencies essential for navigating complex modern demands of global citizenship (Lingard et al., 2021). The WHO (2020), for example, outline 10 such ‘life skills’ which support individuals in navigating the demands of life: decision making; problem solving: creative thinking; critical thinking; effective communication; interpersonal relationship skills; coping with stress; self-awareness; empathy; and coping with emotions. While it is unclear exactly what methods were used to decide on these 10 competencies (WHO, 1994), they closely align with what many parents say they want for their children (Maqsood et al., 2024; Shaked et al., 2017): not only academic success, but self-awareness, responsibility, and accepting failure (Maqsood et al., 2024). Perhaps this is the ‘mark’ (Aristotle & Burnet, 1903) we should be aiming for in schools. Despite these competencies being highly valued and evident in contemporary curriculum models (Sinnema et al., 2013), they are not always overtly prioritised, systematically taught, or clearly monitored within schools (DeJaeghere & Murphy-Graham, 2022; Kelso, 2024; Kuhn, 2024).

One reason may be that these skills are often implicitly embedded within broader, more abstract notions of wellbeing, rather than treated as distinct, measurable outcomes. In fact, these life skills closely intersect with a more expansive view of wellbeing: one that sees students not simply as learners but as developing, active individuals (Freire & Ramos, 2017), whoare navigating stress, failure, and complexity (Kelly, 2009), and even learning from these difficulties (Collins et al., 2016). It is important, however, to note that the aforementioned definition of wellbeing from the WHO (2025) appears somewhat Aristotelian in its assertion that ‘living well’ and ‘doing well’ are not the same as being happy (Aristotle & Burnet, 1903). Happiness is the end goal and is something to be sought, with education training pupils in the management of pleasure and pain in the journey to achieve that goal (Aristotle & Burnet, 1903). This is of particular interest as it juxtaposes a seemingly cultural shift over the last decade towards a more hedonic attitude of wellbeing, rather than the eudaimonic idea of self-improvement. There is an understandable adversity to merely ‘surviving’ or ‘languishing’ in both schools of thought, as this can lead to clinical mental health issues. However, if someone is continually ‘thriving’, they will not be prepared when difficulties come their way. Instead, ‘striving’ could be deemed a far healthier mindset. Optimism is valuable but cannot be relied upon because life contains uncontrollable hardships (W. James, 2008).

Due to these uncontrollable hardships, wellbeing cannot be neutral in schools, nor should schools mistakenly pursue a culture focused solely on hedonic wellbeing. It is, or at least should be, linked to the purpose and role of education in that particular educational setting (Primdahl & Simovska, 2024); a somewhat biopsychosocial model. ‘Education is not therapy’ (Biesta, 2009, p. 39) and we should not forget that ‘mark’.

So, if these are the overarching end goals, how can schools ensure they use the right methods within a workable structure to achieve these goals, and how will they know if it works? Also, what about the students themselves? Students who understand that the brain is capable of change and not just a static ‘hard drive’ are more likely to be receptive to developing these life skills and are therefore more self-efficacious (Freire & Ramos, 2017; Hedlund, 2021).

5. The Psychology of Success

If we accept the arguments presented previously that schools have a duty to develop students beyond purely academic knowledge—equipping them with resilience, self-awareness, and other such life skills—then the question becomes the following: how can this be effectively achieved? While educational research offers one perspective, insights can also be drawn from other performance environments where similar outcomes are prioritised: growth under pressure, adaptability, collaboration, and a striving mindset. Perhaps pedagogical experts are trying too hard to create something new. While there is no doubt that working with children creates an extremely complex environment with a multitude of variables to consider, other fields, such as sport, sports coaching, and talent development, in which similar end goals are sought, may offer valuable insight.

Sports psychology is by no means a simpler field (Taylor & Collins, 2020). However, the variables can often be more controlled within research depending on the nature and purpose (Ericsson et al., 1993). Like education, it aims for progress towards both objective and subjective markers of success. Despite these parallels, the fields remain somewhat distinct, even though this potential for transfer is an acknowledged method. For example, Pierce et al. (2017) advise that sport skills can and should be transferred to other contexts to become ‘life skills’. Research also suggests that high-performing individuals across different domains exhibit the same ‘psychobehaviours’ (Button, 2011).

Initial work in this area by Orlick and Partington (1988) was groundbreaking (Durand-Bush et al., 2023) in the sense that it was the first time research had been conducted into what makes athletes across different sports achieve and retain their status as elite. While it has paved the way for much of the sports psychology investigated in the 21st century, it only established what the characteristics were, not how to develop them (Durand-Bush & Salmela, 2002). This mirrors a familiar challenge in education: we often know what attributes we want students to develop, but less about how to cultivate them effectively. As Collins and MacNamara (2017) highlight, there is much scope for a ‘pracademic’ approach, to bridge the gap between academic research and practical applications. Encouragingly, a measurement tool was developed and further adjusted to monitor the development of these characteristics (Hill et al., 2019; MacNamara & Collins, 2011).

Additionally, whilst the research of Orlick and Partington (1988) was focused on sports psychology and created a foundation for the explorations into Psychological Characteristics of Developing Excellence (PCDEs) in sportspeople over the last few decades (MacNamara, 2011), Orlick went on to investigate how his research could be transferred into other settings. With regards to education, he investigated the field of elementary school guidance and counselling (Gilbert & Orlick, 1996; St. Denis et al., 1996). However, his research involved small sample sizes and focused on the mental health of younger students rather than ‘life skills’ and the more specific aspirations of middle and senior school students.

MacNamara (2011) emphasises the need for these psychological characteristics to be meaningful to the individual and tailored to their given context, whilst maintaining that there appears to be a substantial benefit with regards to the ‘development and facilitated deployment of these skills’ (p. 49) in relation to education—what is learned in sport is good for life (Sabock & Sabock, 2017). This sentiment is echoed by L. James et al. (2024) who suggest a potential ethical need for talent development programmes in sport, to nurture high-performance mindsets beyond athletic achievement.

If sport has begun to embrace a broader developmental responsibility, surely schools whose role is arguably even broader should also be building environments that cultivate this kind of character development. The shared insights across these domains reinforce what we already know, that long-term success depends not only on knowledge, but on the psychological and behavioural attributes that shape an individual’s behaviour. Therefore, schools could benefit from finding ways to nurture these qualities while simultaneously navigating the increasing demands of academic accountability and institutional pressures.

6. Education for a Good Life

As previously mentioned, Ancient Greek philosophers concluded, millennia ago, that education is about preparing children for a good life (Aristotle & Burnet, 1903). While many schools are focused on measurable exam results, and abstract concepts of wellbeing, educational policymakers, and those involved in the development of national curricula are now adding to their demands and urging educators to consider character development for today’s globalised society (Claxton, 2008; Kelly, 2009; Lingard et al., 2021). This is not a separation of traditionalist and progressive notions of education (Claxton, 2008) but rather an appreciation that education is about more than just the learning and teaching of knowledge for a particular situation, which is not a new idea (Schrader & Lawless, 2004).

Whilst education has long been concerned with preparing students for the future, it must be remembered that life has always been unpredictable and, at times, difficult (W. James, 2008). It could be argued that these are the moments which make the difference and shape personal growth (Collins et al., 2016; Danish et al., 1992). Schools, therefore, have a responsibility to prepare students not only for success, but also adversity (Freire & Ramos, 2017; Priestley & Biesta, 2013), especially if they are to benefit rather than suffer from them (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). While it has been suggested that everyone has an intrinsic motivation to succeed (Sabock & Sabock, 2017), success remains a subjective notion and can shift throughout life.

It is also important to involve students in the development of practices and frameworks (Priestley & Biesta, 2013) as they are then more likely to understand the underlying purpose (Swinson, 2010). If a student understands this, and that a change in their behaviours will ultimately have a more positive than negative outcome, their attitude will be more favourable towards the changes (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010).

While the basic principles are obvious, hence the multitude of frameworks on offer, successful interventions are a lot more complex (Cigman, 2012; Feraco et al., 2023). Knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours must all be considered to predict and enable future behaviours (Priestley & Biesta, 2013), but monitoring and measuring this is a challenge for schools to do reliably and validly (Blazar & Kraft, 2017; Schrader & Lawless, 2004).

This is where there is scope to consider the plethora of research into sports performance behaviours and how these might be transferred into school environments, as these are transferable life skills that should be valued and understood (Danish et al., 1992). For example, the PCDEs, developed by MacNamara et al. (2010a, 2010b), are just that, characteristics of excellence, not just sporting excellence. Alongside the questionnaire (Hill et al., 2019; MacNamara & Collins, 2011), there is a basis for measuring and monitoring those attitudes and behaviours.

Despite the growing clarity around the psychological characteristics that support long-term success, there remains a lack of established methods to reliably nurture them, especially in school settings. In high-performance sport, this developmental responsibility often falls to the coach. In schools, the form tutor could serve a similar role, acting as a ‘vector’, offering direction, coherence, and continuity. However, with the blurring of pastoral roles, and variations in teacher training, not all educators feel confident in delivering life skills (Kay, 2010; Smith, 2002).

Additionally, for these developmental goals to be meaningfully embedded, a clear, school-wide culture is essential. Subject teachers can act as ‘levers’, reinforcing key attitudes and behaviours in subject-specific contexts (Kay, 2010; Park et al., 2018). However, it requires more than isolated good practice. Attitude and behaviour are situational (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977; Danish et al., 1992; Schrader & Lawless, 2004), so there must be a shared vision in a school to ensure depth and consistency, rather than leaving the cultivation of these to chance.

7. Conclusions

This review aimed to explore how schools might better align their structures and practices to develop attitudes and behaviours crucial for students’ long-term success. While schools aspire to prepare students for this, it is often a secondary focus to academic performance. Where competencies have been prioritised, challenges have arisen with full integration, and a lack of confidence in measuring the impact of interventions has emerged. Drawing on psychology from talent development environments, we propose that a more integrated approach is needed, one that treats ‘life skills’ as fundamental rather than supplementary.

Future research in implementing such an approach presents significant challenges, including policy constraints, competing priorities, and the need for teacher training that supports nuanced professional judgement. Education is far from an applied science (Kelly, 2009); it is a social practice that creates meaning through a variety of interactions (Priestley et al., 2021). It is therefore of vital importance that theory and practice meet in future research to ensure that interventions are both theoretically sound, and practically useful (von Glasersfeld & Steffe, 1991). Teachers, with their deep understanding of student and school contexts, are ideally positioned to employ this ‘pracdemic’ approach, translating theory into practice in a way that resonates with students (Kay & Greenhill, 2011; Nuthall, 2004). It is also imperative that students are not treated like patients or lab rats (Hendrick, 2019). They are intelligent and relatively autonomous individuals who, given the opportunity, will make sense of things in their own contexts (Freire & Ramos, 2017; Priestley & Biesta, 2013; von Glasersfeld & Steffe, 1991). Consequently, practitioners should involve the student and teach life skills much like one would teach sports skills (Danish et al., 1992), resembling coaching with consistent feedback, encouragement, and opportunities to practice. To be transferable, they must be valued and understood (Sabock & Sabock, 2017), and the emotional state of the student must be managed appropriately (Taylor & Collins, 2020).

Ultimately, this review suggests that schools should see the development of attitudes and behaviours on a par with the acquisition of knowledge. When educational frameworks ignore this behavioural dimension, they risk overlooking what truly prepares students to thrive beyond school. Instead of relying solely on narrow academic metrics, education must aim to cultivate a broader, more durable form of success. These outcomes are defined not only by what students know, but by how they approach learning, challenge, and life itself. Future research should focus on how to embed these priorities into policy, professional development, and school culture. Considerably, more work needs to be conducted, not only with implementation, but also to be able to confidently measure the impact.