Three Insights From Learning Science to Structure Your Lessons Better (Part 2/7)

This is the second story in a series of posts about how learning science insights can improve course design. The other stories are linked within and included at the end of this post.

Teachers balance many competing needs when planning their lessons.

The content can drive our planning. The type of knowledge the students need to demonstrate impacts our plans. Logistics like the length of the class period, whether there’s a fire drill, how many students will be missing for a sports trip, and whether there’s space in the classroom to move desks are in the backs of our minds. We also flexibly adjust our plans according to things like: formative assessment results and how soon the summative assessment is.

We should also use learning science principles to guide our lesson plans.

I’ll talk about three overarching structural components of lessons, based on learning science. I’ll talk about cognitive load theory, retrieval practice, and reflection.

Take a load off

Cognitive Load Theory suggests that when we’re processing too much unfamiliar information at once, our ability to think, remember, and reason decreases [1].

We learn worse.

What types of things are too heavy a cognitive load? There are several examples:

• Information that is presented in language that is complex, abstract, and linguistically dense. A lot of subject-matter texts impose this kind of a load on readers. Recondite argot, nominalization, and passive voice are employed. Or, rather, the text uses technical jargon, complex noun phrases, and passive voice to describe effects.
• Solving multi-step problems where certain elements haven’t yet been automatized. For example, when students need to work hard to remember the steps, complete the actual calculations, and remember where they are in the problem solving sequence, this causes a heavy cognitive load.
• Hearing and processing repeated verbal instructions or reminders while working on cognitively challenging tasks.
• A complex diagram which cannot be understood without referring to a separate textual description.
• Managing significant emotions (anxiety, fear, etc) while performing cognitively challenging tasks, for example when students are anxiously anticipating when they’ll be called on or feel emotionally unsafe in a learning environment.

Some caveats.

First, it’s important to note that there are several types of cognitive load. As teachers, we want to reduce extraneous cognitive load, since it is unnecessary and often hinders learning. The Australian Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation [2] has published a user-friendly overview of cognitive load theory which outlines the types of cognitive load that support learning and implications for classroom teachers.

When we design scaffolds we need to keep our students’ level of mastery in mind. Photo by Ricardo Gomez Angel on Unsplash

Second, when we design scaffolds to reduce some of the cognitive load that is inherent in a task, we need to consider our students’ mastery of that task. As students develop mastery, their cognitive load demands decrease. They begin to think like experts, chunking steps and automatizing actions. The expertise-reversal effect [3] suggests that too many scaffolds designed to decrease cognitive load can be ineffective or even hinder learning for students with more mastery.

What does this mean for teachers planning units and lessons? Quite simply: try to limit unnecessary information so students can focus on the targeted learning.

Try this: Structure your lessons to start with a summary of the day’s learning. This way students can focus on what they’re currently learning instead of allocating cognitive resources to trying to predict what’s coming next. I like to write a bullet point summary on a side of the board and leave it up all period so students can refer to it throughout the lesson. This has the important added benefit of keeping myself on track while I’m teaching!

Try this: Make explicit links between previous learning and new learning. This way students can focus on what they’re learning instead of trying to figure out how it’s related to or different from what they learned in previous lessons or classes. Of course the students can sometimes make these links as part of a rich learning activity. But cognitive science suggests we should avoid leaving the connections unaddressed so that students are left wondering throughout the lesson.

Try this: When giving instructions with multiple steps, write them down (on the board, on the paper, etc). This way students can focus all of their energy on the step they’re currently working on instead of trying to remember the next step(s). This is also a huge benefit for students with certain learning disabilities who have limited working memory.

This may be the hardest part for teachers. Photo by Kristina Flour on Unsplash

Try this: Once you give instructions and make sure the students understand the task, stop talking. Give students time to think and engage with the task. When you keep talking — repeating instructions, rephrasing information, talking loudly to answer a student’s question — it disturbs all of the students, since their brain is processing your speech while trying to focus on the task you’ve asked them to do.

Try this: Scaffold your lesson. Start with small steps, make sure students master them, then add in details or complexity. Think of each lesson (or each lesson section) as a building: a strong foundation and pieces built on top of that with mortar holding them together. Providing a preview of the finished building at the beginning of the lesson, making sure all of the students understand your foundation and that you make the mortar connections explicit reduces cognitive load.

Try this: Build in lots of practice of intermediate steps. In a language arts class, build in lots of practice with paragraphs before moving to essays. In a math class, build in lots of practice with basic problems before moving to more complex equations. By over-practicing the steps required, students will develop automaticity and be able to focus on the content, not split their attention between content and what they’re supposed to do with it.

Tying It Together

When students are first learning new skills, they are balancing several challenging cognitive tasks. They’re remembering the steps required for new skills. They’re processing problem- or topic-specific content. They may be checking their notes or another source to monitor their progress.

We can make their learning more effective by being aware of the cognitive load of the various tasks we’re requesting students complete. We can make learning more effective by reducing unnecessary cognitive load. And we can ensure all students learn best by being aware of students’ mastery levels so our supports help, rather than hinder them.

Retrieval makes the memory stronger

Current insights into learning science suggest that learning is less about what we put into the brain and more about retrieving information from the brain. Study after study has shown that reviewing material — by rereading, by highlighting, by relistening to a lecture, etc — is largely ineffective for learning. On the other hand, self-quizzing, low-stakes testing, and attempts to recall information are hugely important for learning [4, 5, 6, 7].

Students who are tested on information right after learning it regularly perform more than a grade higher on final tests than those who just review the information.

Incorporate daily mini quizzes instead of larger, high-stakes exams to improve learning. Photo by Chris Liverani on Unsplash

This is an easy strategy to incorporate into your lesson planning. In one study, students were given a low-stakes quiz daily (just a couple of questions) and significantly outperformed their peers who just reread information daily [9, 10]. They outperformed their peers to the tune of more than a letter grade on the final exam! In another study, a professor changed his course from having two midterms and a final to having 9 tests over the course of the semester — grades increased significantly [10].

Some caveats.

Retrieval practice has been extensively investigated. A review of the literature [6] points out that practice testing that includes feedback is much better for learning than practice tests with no feedback.

Teachers may wonder what types of testing are best for learning. Typically, research finds that activities that require students to generate information (for example, by recalling everything they read or writing short-answer responses) are better for learning than when students merely need to identify the correct answer (for example, multiple choice or matching) [6].

We also need to think about how frequently to engage in retrieval practice. The answer tends to be twofold: frequently and at long-ish intervals.

Many studies have found that a longer time between testing is better [6]. Other studies have suggested that the amount of time between practice tests should be about 10–20% of how long the student needs to know something [8]. So if a student needs to learn something for an upcoming test, then doing practice tests every few days is probably best. However, if a student needs to remember something for an exam at the end of a two-year course, the best interval for practice tests is every two months!

Try this: In lesson planning, build in opportunities for students to test their knowledge. This can be through low-stakes quizzes, through interactive quizzes (using clickers or similar software), through interactive online quizzes (like kahoot!), through frequently scheduled tests instead of major exams, etc.

Tying It Together

Counter-intuitively, productive learning seems to be more about getting memories out rather than putting information in. When we ask students to find the answers in their minds - to remember - we’re helping them learn better.

Mirror mirror on the wall: How does reflection help?

Reflection, quite simply, means thinking about what you’ve learned. Reflection, quite simply, makes learners actively involved in their own learning.

Too often, we provide instruction — through a lecture, mini-lesson, presentation, reading, or video — and then have a discussion. Students may or may not attend during the instruction, and often, only the minority of students engage during the discussion. We’ve made it too easy for students to sit through our lessons without making sure they learn.

Give students time to think and prompts for deep thinking. Photo by Laurenz Kleinheider on Unsplash

Individual reflection time, however, makes sure all students engage with the material and helps improve all students’ learning.

When I’ve participated in effective professional development, we have had structured reflection at the end of each day (or half-day). When I’m not expecting it, I sometimes struggle to complete the exercises, showing me that I haven’t been attending as fully as I should have been. The next day, I’m always more engaged, actively monitoring my learning so that my reflection is more robust.

When students think about their learning, they’re actively engaging with material. When students think about how their learning changed their thinking, they’re comparing old thinking patterns to new insights. When students rank their learning to identify the most important thing they learned, they are framing what they learned through the lens of what they need to be able to do.

A simple reflection prompt and five minutes to write can make sure that all students engage deeply with their learning.

Visible Thinking, a thinking project through Harvard University, focuses explicitly on thinking routines, some of which are especially helpful for structuring reflection [11]. But the reflections that you encourage students to engage in don’t need to be deeply insightful.

Simply asking students to identify what the most important learning was — and why — gets them to think. Asking students how their thinking about a subject has changed — gets them to think. Asking students to diagram how their learning fits together (through a concept map [12], for example) — gets them to think.

A powerful way to structure reflection is to ask students to relate learning back to their own lives. This takes advantage of the concretizing and anchoring principles [7], whereby abstract learning becomes more concrete when students make connections to themselves, things they already know, and situations they’re familiar with.

Another powerful way to encourage students to reflect is to ask them to write their own explanation of something they have just learned. Cognitive science has repeatedly shown the power of self-explanation in improving learning [13, 14].

Like the other lesson structure tools presented here, reflection is simple to integrate into your teaching.

Try this: When I taught middle school English, I started each lesson with a five minute journal prompt which was related to the unit at hand. Sometimes I asked students to reflect on a quotation, sometimes I gave them a creative writing prompt, sometimes I gave a controversial statement about the texts we were studying and asked them to respond. My students overwhelmingly felt that this routine helped them get their brains ready for English class and shifted their attention to the focus of our study.

Try this: Use a strategy called “write to learn” where you stop students after they learn key information and ask them to write about it. They may summarize the information in their own words, they may make connections to other information they know, they may identify or clarify points of confusion. No matter what they write about, research suggests actively thinking about their learning and writing about it helps them learn better [15].

Try this: When we teach long units (8 weeks or more), students sometimes lose the thread of our study. Building up a bank of reflections helps them map their own learning and better understanding the conceptual framework within which we’re teaching. Creating concept maps is an effective way to visually demonstrate how student learning has changed over the course of the unit.

Tying It Together

Reflection does double-duty. It promotes active thinking which helps students learn better. And it helps students be more aware of their learning processes, helping them to be aware of when they need to practice a topic more or when they no longer need a scaffold in order to do a task.

The Take-Away

When planning how to structure a lesson, certain lessons from learning science can offer guiding principles. Cognitive load theory suggests we should keep in mind just how mentally taxing a task is and build in strategies to reduce unnecessary load. Retrieval practice suggests that we should build in opportunities for our students to test themselves: through low-stakes quizzing, written recall of previously-learned information, flashcards, or any number of other methods. And throughout, we should be encouraging our students to reflect on their learning.

Related Posts

How Insights from Learning Science Can Transform Your Teaching (Part 1/7)

Three Powerful Lessons from Psychology To Change How You Plan Lesson Content (Part 3/7)

What Learning Science Says About How to Teach (Part 4/7)

How You Can Use a Top-Ten Instructional Strategy to Boost Learning (Part 5/7)

The Surprising Ways Thinking About Learning Can Impact Learning (Part 6/7)

Rethinking Testing: Better Ways to Use Assessment to Improve Learning (Part 7/7)

Teaching in a Pandemic: How Learning Science can Help (Part 8/7)

Prior Knowledge: Why It Matters and What We Can Do

References

1. Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. In Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 55, pp. 37–76). Academic Press.
2. Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation. Cognitive load theory: Research that teachers really need to understand. (2017). NSW Department of Education. Sydney: NSW Government. Retrieved from https://www.cese.nsw.gov.au/publications-filter/cognitive-load-theory-research-that-teachers-really-need-to-understand
3. Lee, C. H. and Kalyuga, S. (2014). Expertise Reversal Effect and Its Instructional Implications. In V. A. Benassi, C. E. Overson & C. M. Hakala (Eds), Applying science of learning in education: Infusing psychological science into the curriculum (pp. 59–70). Retrieved from the Society for the Teaching of Psychology website: http://teachpsych.org/ebooks/asle2014/index.php
4. Pyc, M. A., Agarwal, P. K. & Roedinger III, H. L. (2014). In V. A. Benassi, C. E. Overson & C. M. Hakala (Eds), Applying science of learning in education: Infusing psychological science into the curriculum (pp. 59–70). Retrieved from the Society for the Teaching of Psychology website: http://teachpsych.org/ebooks/asle2014/index.php
5. Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2015). Practice tests, spaced practice, and successive relearning: Tips for classroom use and for guiding students’ learning. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(1), 72.
6. Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58.
7. Pashler, H., Bain, P. M., Bottge, B. A., Graesser, A., Koedinger, K., McDaniel, M., & Metcalfe, J. (2007). Organizing Instruction and Study to Improve Student Learning. IES Practice Guide. NCER 2007–2004. National Center for Education Research.
8. Cepeda, N. J., Vul, E., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T., & Pashler, H. (2008). Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention. Psychological science, 19(11), 1095–1102.
9. M. A. McDaniel, P. K. Agarwal, B. J. Huelser, K. B. McDermott, & H. L. Roediger (2011). Test-enhanced learning in a middle school science classroom: The effects of quiz frequency and placement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 399–414.
10. Brown, P. C., Roediger, H. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make it stick. Harvard University Press.
11. Ritchhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K. (2011). Making thinking visible: How to promote engagement, understanding, and independence for all learners. John Wiley & Sons.
12. Novak, J. D. & A. J. Cañas, The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct and Use Them, Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006–01 Rev 01–2008, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, 2008, available at: http://cmap.ihmc.us/docs/pdf/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf
13. Chiu, J. L. & Chi, M. T. H. (2014). Supporting self-explanation in the classroom. In V. A. Benassi, C. E. Overson & C. M. Hakala (Eds), Applying science of learning in education: Infusing psychological science into the curriculum (pp. 59–70). Retrieved from the Society for the Teaching of Psychology website: http://teachpsych.org/ebooks/asle2014/index.php
14. Chi, M. T., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive science, 18(3), 439–477.
15. Gingerich, K. J., Bugg, J. M., Doe, S. R., Rowland, C. A., Richards, T. L., Tompkins, S. A., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Active processing via write-to-learn assignments: Learning and retention benefits in introductory psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 41(4), 303–308.

If you enjoyed this piece, hold the 👏 icon below so others can find this story. Please share your thoughts in the comments.

For more pieces from Learn Better, follow us on our page.

Stephanie Hepner has taught middle and high school special education/learning support and English in New York, Brussels, and Stockholm. She currently works in education in Singapore. An international educator committed to equity in education, she is passionate about learning science as it promises to improve learning for all students.