The Learning Zone and the Performance Zone

Two Complementary Spaces for Learning and Growth

by: Geneviève Carpentier, Anick Sirard, Guylaine Rousseau, Tania Kabis, Marc-André Bélanger

date: January 21, 2026

A seven year old child is practicing reading aloud. He stumbles over some words, goes back, tries again. His mother encourages him: “Keep going, you’ll get it. Try to look carefully at the end of the word.” In this moment, the child is reading to learn, and the feedback he receives can directly support his attempts.

A teacher is leading a math talk. He feels awkward using this new approach, makes mental notes, observes students’ reactions, and adjusts his prompts. It’s not perfect yet, but he senses he is exploring fertile ground for better engaging students in sharing their reasoning.

A teenager is training for a regional competition. She repeats the same movement over and over, adjusts her posture, listens carefully to her coach’s comments. A few months later, during the competition, she focuses her energy on performing that movement in front of judges and spectators, concentrating this time on the result.

These situations, experienced countless times, can all be understood as examples of the same phenomenon: we constantly move between a learning zone and a performance zone (Briceño, 2017). Understanding these two zones—what distinguishes them and, above all, how they interact—can be useful when we want to make progress or support someone else’s progress, whether we are a student, a teacher, a parent, or an education professional (Ministry of Education Ontario, 2010; Conseil supérieur de l’éducation, 2018).

The Learning Zone

Edmondson’s (2018) work on learning and psychological safety helps illuminate what we refer to here as the learning zone, understood as the space for trial, error, and growth. In this zone, mistakes are viewed as information to be processed rather than faults to be punished. Time is therefore dedicated to improvement, and the expected quality is that of the process (quality of attempts, precision of observations, relevance of adjustments), not that of a fully mastered skill. This zone is structured around criteria for progress and is supported by frequent, specific, and actionable feedback for the learner. The primary goal is not the final result but rather the understanding and improvement of the technique, the reasoning, or the skill.

This conception aligns closely with Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD): learners work at the edge of their current abilities, with appropriate scaffolding (hints, modeling, supports) that makes possible today—with help—what could become achievable tomorrow, without help.

In this zone, one knows when and on what one is experimenting. Learners have clear reference points (e.g., strategies, checklists, procedures, reminders) and understand the indicators of success, which helps determine when to shift into the performance zone. It is assumed that learning takes time and requires multiple trials in different contexts. Support is gradually reduced (the ZPD “fading”) as the learner becomes more autonomous. The desire to accelerate learning prematurely is resisted, and preventable failures are minimized.

According to Edmondson (2018), this zone requires sufficient psychological safety so that individuals feel able to ask questions, admit uncertainty, share half-formed ideas, and experiment without fear of disproportionate consequences. The stance adopted by the educator and the learners contributes to building a culture of growth; the learning zone thus becomes a springboard to the performance zone.

The Performance Zone

The performance zone is the space of results and demonstration. This term, borrowed from Briceño (2017; 2023) and consistent with Edmondson’s (2018) perspective, refers to situations in which quality, efficiency, accuracy, and consistency of execution are the primary expectations (e.g., an exam, a certifying assessment, a theatrical performance, a public presentation). The goal is to mobilize well-established skills, which is why it is useful to deliberately limit improvisation that could introduce errors with potentially costly consequences.

In this zone, the learner uses the reference points stabilized in the learning zone (e.g., strategy, checklist, procedure, cue sheet) to meet the success criteria. This allows us to measure the degree of mastery without assistance and identify blind spots. The performance level achieved becomes the new starting point from which learning will continue. Performance moments act as a mirror, turning lived experience into opportunities for growth.

To make this possible, a pedagogical and relational climate grounded in a culture of growth must be established. This allows for debriefing afterwards and for a blameless analysis of performance. A culture rooted primarily in performance, on the other hand, would shrink the time and space dedicated to the learning zone and increase moments where mistakes carry costly consequences for the learner—grades, social acceptance, selfp-erception, mindset (Bibeau & Meilleur, 2022).

The performance zone can also become a place for conscious, critical consolidation of learning. The work of Schön (1983) and Perrenoud (2011) on the reflective practitioner suggests that some learning can occur during performance itself. Beyond reflection after the fact (reflection on action), the learner can engage in reflection in action, which takes place at the very moment of execution. For example, the teacher leading a math talk during a colleague’s visit adjusts their prompts in real time, and the gymnast in competition corrects her positioning without stopping. This instantaneous, deliberate adjustment—the immediate correction of the gap between the action taken and the intended result—constitutes a form of learning within the performance zone. Prior automation of skills frees up the cognitive resources needed for reflection in action when facing the unexpected.

In sum, the performance zone, when grounded in a culture of growth, gives meaning and visibility to the efforts made beforehand, socializes learning (before a class, a panel, or a community), and helps set appropriate ambitions for what comes next. It is precisely because it is not the space for exploration that it can provide high-quality information about what needs to be deliberately practiced upon returning to the learning zone.

From Repetition to Deliberate Practice

We often say “practice,” as if it were a uniform action. Yet Ericsson’s (2016) work shows that not all practice is equal. Repeating—meaning replaying what we already know how to do—mainly reinforces what exists. Learning, by contrast, requires a different kind of practice: deliberate practice, that is, training designed to gradually push us beyond the limits of our current abilities.

Deliberate practice rarely begins with “doing more”; it begins with doing differently, one small component of a complex skill at a time. A broad intention (“read better,” “lead better,” “perform better”) is replaced with a precise, graspable objective, such as identifying word endings in tion in two sentences, producing three open prompts in ten minutes during a math talk, or correcting the takeoff angle before the jump. This intentional segmentation is not a simplification—it directs attention to the detail most likely to shift the whole.

We work at the edge of our competence: not too easy (risk of stagnation) and not too hard (discouragement). We move forward step by step, creating a slight imbalance we believe we can overcome. This is when feedback is most useful: precise, immediate, and actionable. “Look at the end of the word.” “Rephrase your question starting with: What makes you say that…?” “Push through the floor before extending.” Feedback is not about judgment; it is about orienting the trajectory and prompting timely attempts.

Deliberate practice also relies on working across different scales: segmenting the action (stretching the sound, open questions, take-off phase) to work on its components, then reintegrating them quickly to avoid leaving the skill fragmented. One varies tempo (slow/fast), complexity (simple/complex), and context (semi-authentic/authentic), and includes breaks: cognitive rest does not interrupt learning—it is likely part of it (Masson, 2020; Sio & Ormerod, 2009). Above all, one cultivates mental models of success: simple, visible criteria; brief comparisons (“before/after” audio/video clips); or traces that make progress more tangible (Ericsson, 2016).

Within this structure, the role of the mentor (parent, teacher, coach) can become decisive. This person designs the exercise, observes the action, identifies the gap, and proposes the next step. In this sense, guidance refers to a stance that is neither directive nor hands-off, but rather a tailored approach for progress—structured by observations and oriented toward the learner’s autonomy (Paul, 2004; 2020). It is precisely this gradual scaffolding, then progressive release, that shapes the transition between the two zones.

Deliberate practice is as a key tool of the learning zone: it structures the practice environment through refined objectives, useful feedback, and rapid iteration. The performance zone also feeds the learning zone: it becomes a real-world diagnostic of what has been built. An exam, a lesson facilitation, or a competition does not necessarily close the story; they inform it. What one succeeds or fails at provides the basis for entering the next cycle in the learning zone with a more finely calibrated objective to guide practice.

Mindsets

The shift from one zone to the other does not depend solely on the tasks given; it is also linked to the beliefs we hold about how competencies develop (e.g., one can ask a question expecting attempted answers, or instead expect to hear the correct answer quickly). Dweck’s work on mindsets (2006, 2016) suggests that these beliefs act as a kind of switch between the learning zone and the performance zone.

In a fixed mindset, abilities are seen as relatively innate and stable. Effort may be interpreted as a sign of deficiency, and mistakes as a personal failure. This often leads individuals to prefer contexts where performance is possible and to avoid situations involving trial, error, or feedback—thus reducing the range of experiences that foster learning.

Conversely, in a growth mindset, abilities are considered developable through high-quality, sustained, and consistent effort, through appropriate strategies, and through relevant scaffolding. Effort becomes a pathway, mistakes become information, and feedback becomes a lever. With this mindset, one enters the learning zone more readily, stays there longer (long enough to progress), and often transforms performance episodes (successes and failures alike) into opportunities to prepare the next practice cycle.

Everyday language appears to influence these mindsets (Johnston, 2010): saying “It’s not quite there yet—let’s keep going!” signals that mastery is gradual. Praising the process (“The way you broke down the difficulty really helped you.”) rather than labeling (“You’re so smart!”) directs attention to what is reproducible. Precisely formulating the next steps (“This week, aim for three open prompts during the math talk.”) makes the effort more engaging and actionable.

Mindsets are neither fixed nor uniform; they can be influenced (Sirard & Carpentier, forthcoming), they vary by context, and they can be cultivated. Adults (parents, teachers, coaches) can make practice moments more approachable: normalizing mistakes, ritualizing feedback, and linking performance to learning through attainable goals. This is what makes the learning zone a desirable place, and what transforms the performance zone from a place of judgement into a springboard.

Conclusion

Learning and performing are not mutually exclusive; they inform and reinforce one another. The learning zone patiently builds skills—through deliberate practice, feedback, and scaffolding—while the performance zone can give meaning to these efforts and make visible both consolidated learning and areas still in need of development. The challenge is to weave these two zones together within a progression-oriented dynamic.

This weaving relies first on thoughtful orchestration of time and support. The time and space dedicated to targeted practice must be sufficient to allow for gradual improvement through appropriately scaled support, which is then progressively withdrawn as the skill can be mobilized autonomously. Reducing the costs associated with errors is crucial for fostering progress. Time devoted to performance must therefore be planned to allow for optimal execution and to nurture the desire to continue improving. This interplay between the two zones also requires cultivating a growth mindset and a climate of psychological safety so that errors—regardless of when they occur—can be welcomed as information to be used for adjustment.

Perhaps a first step is to take this perspective on one’s own practice. As an education professional, in which zone do you find yourself most often? Do you allow yourself to remain in the learning zone—to try, to adjust, to not fully know yet—or do you require yourself to be permanently in the performance zone? Observing how you personally navigate between these spaces makes visible the sometimes implicit demands and internalized expectations that shape your work. It also invites reflection on the tolerance for error that you apply to yourself. This reflective insight can then become an anchor for more closely analyzing your professional actions, the conditions you create, and the signals you send. It is from this situated awareness, not from an abstract ideal, that the connection between the learning zone and the performance zone can sustain long-term progress, for both students and the people who accompany them.

In the classroom, the learning zone can be created with:

Tasks that allow for trial, repetition, and adjustment (e.g., existing tasks worked on in a sequenced and guided way to enable successive attempts and gradual adjustments);
Attention to the process (strategies used, approaches, reasoning) rather than only the final product (e.g., moments where we make explicit how an answer was constructed, what choices were made, or what strategies were used, regardless of the final accuracy);
Progression criteria that are clearly stated, commonly understood, and revisited multiple times (e.g., criteria worked on collectively, reformulated, illustrated, or used as benchmarks to identify where we are and what remains to be developed);
Frequent, targeted feedback oriented toward the next step, explicitly linked to certain criteria (e.g., feedback indicating which aspects of the work meet a given criterion and which still require adjustments, to make the process transparent and understandable);
A climate where mistakes are acceptable and can be used constructively (e.g., when an error is treated as information to analyze—individually or collectively—without immediate evaluative consequences);
Support that is more present and varied during initial attempts, then gradually reduced as autonomy develops (e.g., support provided by peers, through class notes, visual reminders, help tools, or by the teacher, adjusted according to needs and gradually withdrawn).

In this zone, mistakes are treated as useful information for understanding and making progress.

In the classroom, the performance zone may be characterized by:

Situations where autonomous application of already stabilized skills is expected (e.g., tasks or familiar situations for which benchmarks have been worked on beforehand and are now presented without immediate support);
A focus on quality, accuracy, and coherence of execution (e.g., when attention is placed on how the entire action or reasoning is carried out, rather than on exploring new strategies);
Success criteria known in advance and commonly understood, used to assess the level of mastery (e.g., criteria explicitly announced and referred to for judging the degree of achievement without revisiting them during execution);
A space where exploration or improvisation is deliberately limited (e.g., when the goal is smooth and efficient execution, reducing adjustments during the action);
Reflective feedback mainly provided after the performance (e.g., debriefing or post-analysis moments allowing review of what was successful and what still needs consolidation);
A regulatory function: making achievements visible and identifying what needs to return to the learning zone (e.g., using results or observations from the performance to target the next practice objectives).

In this zone, performance informs the next steps in the learning journey.

References

Argyris, C., et Schön, D. A. (1992). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. John Wiley & Sons.

Bibeau, J. et Meilleur, R. (2022). Pédagogie de l’accompagnement entrepreneurial (2) : vers une performance bienveillante et négociée. Entreprendre & Innover, 52(1), 66-76. https://doi.org/10.3917/entin.052.0066.

Briceño, E. (2017, 23 février). How to get better at the things you care about [communication orale]. TED. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKACzIrog24

Briceño, E. (2023). The Performance Paradox: Turning the Power of Mindset into Action. Ballantine Books.

Carpentier, G., Villeneuve-Lapointe, M., Lépine, M., Sirard, A., Desbiens, N., Paré, M., et Tardif, C. (2024a). Favoriser la persévérance et la réussite scolaires par une gestion de classe et un environnement socioéducatif positifs : une recherche-action mobilisant des actrices de changement en matière d’apprentissage durable [projet no 2021-0PLA-295211 – rapport de recherche]. Fonds de recherche du Québec – Société et Culture – Actions concertées. https://hdl.handle.net/1866/33941

Carpentier, G., et Sirard, A. (2025, mai). Influencer des ajustements et des changements de pratique par des contenus psychopédagogiques qui permettent de saisir le processus d’apprentissage et sa durabilité [communication orale]. 92e Congrès annuel de l’Acfas, colloque 536 : Pratiques évaluatives, éducatives, pédagogiques, didactiques, de gestion et de collaboration : Regards croisés pour contribuer à la réussite educative, Montréal, QC, Canada. 

Conseil supérieur de l’éducation. (2018). Évaluer pour que ça compte vraiment. Gouvernement du Québec.

Dweck, C. S. (2006/2016). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Random House.

Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. John Wiley & Sons.

Ericsson, K. A. (2016). Peak: How to master almost anything. Penguin.

Johnston, P. (2010). L’importance des mots. Chenelière Éducation.

Paul, M. (2004). L’accompagnement : une posture professionnelle spécifique. Paris : L’Harmattan.

Paul, M. (2020). La démarche d’accompagnement. De Boeck Supérieur.

Perrenoud, P. (2011). Développer la pratique réflexive dans le métier enseignant. ESF.

Masson, S. (2020). Activer ses neurones. Odile Jacob.

Ministry of Education Ontario. (2010). Growing Success: Assessment, Evaluation and Reporting in Ontario Schools. Toronto, ON : Ministry of Educaiton.

Sio, U. N., et Ormerod, T. C. (2009). Does incubation enhance problem solving? A meta analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 135(1), 94–120.

Sirard, A., et Carpentier, G. (2025). État d’esprit fixiste/État d’esprit de croissance — Synthèse (diapo de travail ; communication ACFAS, 2025).

Vygotski, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Meet the Expert(s)

Geneviève Carpentier

Chercheuse, Université de Montréal

Professeure en sciences de l’éducation à l’Université de Montréal et rédactrice de la revue professionnelle Vivre le primaire, Geneviève Carpentier s’intéresse au processus d’apprentissage et à sa durabilité. Ses travaux portent sur les pratiques enseignantes, le vécu des élèves et le développement professionnel.

Anick Sirard

Conseillère pédagogique, Centre de services scolaire des Samares

Après plus de 10 ans d’expérience en tant qu’enseignante de français au secondaire, au cours de la dernière décennie, Anick a joué le rôle conseillère pédagogique en mettant l’accent sur l’importance de rapprocher les milieux scientifique et pratique. Elle loge présentement au carrefour entre ces deux milieux, car tout en étant conseillère pédagogique, elle est aussi cotitulaire de la chaire partenariale CADENCE.

Guylaine Rousseau

Doctorante, Université de Montréal

Guylaine Rousseau est doctorante en sciences de l’éducation à l’Université de Montréal. Ses travaux s’inscrivent en didactique des mathématiques et portent sur le développement professionnel d’enseignants du primaire en lien avec le sens du nombre.

Tania Kabis

Conseillère pédagogique, Centre de services scolaire des Samares

Tania Kabis est conseillère pédagogique en adaptation scolaire depuis plus de 12 ans maintenant. Quand l’occasion d’accompagner des écoles en soutien à l’apprentissage durable s’est offerte dans sont centre de services, elle a voulu en faire partie. C’est un contexte d’accompagnement et de développement professionnel très enrichissant selon elle.

Marc-André Bélanger

Conseiller pédagogique, Centre de services scolaire des Samares

Conseiller pédagogique depuis 15 ans, Marc-André Bélanger cherche à faire réfléchir les enseignants quant aux pratiques de classe visant à rendre les élèves davantage actifs dans leurs apprentissages, en misant sur la coopération et les échanges entre eux. Ces dernières années, il a eu la chance d’accompagner des écoles de son centre de services dans le déploiement du dispositif d’apprentissage durable et cette expérience a été marquante pour son développement professionnel.