October 2023 – Education & Teacher Conferences Skip to main content
The Whole Toolbox in One (Free) Download
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

If you want to learn more about improving teaching with psychology research, I’ve got good news:

There are SO MANY excellent books to read.

I’ve also got bad news:

There are SO MANY excellent books to read, we can struggle to manage them all.

In fact, as I’ve written elsewhere, I think the “best book to read” depends on the category of book you’re looking for.

At the beginning of your research+education journey, you probably want a book devoted to one topic: say, working memory, or motivation, or attention.

As you get more familiar with different categories of research, you might instead want a book that brings many topics together.

Today I’d like to recommend a book from the second category: the Great Teaching Toolkit: Evidence Review from Evidence Based Education. (You can read about it and download it here.)

Step One: How to Begin?

Anyone striving to write a book that “brings many topics together” starts with an enormous challenge: how to organize such a behemoth?

We have SO MUCH pertinent research on SO MANY topics: how can we possibly tidy this muddle?

The Toolkit’s authors devise a sensible sorting strategy. They believe research gives teachers strong guidance in four areas:

What sorts of knowledge do teachers need?

How can we make classrooms emotionally safe?

How can we structure classroom work and routines efficiently?

What teaching strategies require students to think hard?

Now, other authors organize their thinking in other ways. (For instance: Dan Willingham’s Why Don’t Students Like School focuses on nine key principles from cognitive science that should guide instruction.)

But I think you can see right away why the Toolkit’s organizational structure sounds so helpful and sensible.

Step Two: Break It Down

Within each of these categories, the authors offer between 3 and 6 specific principles: everything from “teachers should know common misconceptions in their discipline” to “strategies for asking questions effectively.”

This structure, in turn, allows for a straightfoward teacher-development plan.

If I were using this Toolkit with a faculty, I would have teachers select one of these sixteen topics: prefereably one where they feel the least confident and successful.

Each teacher would then dig into the research-base suggestions provided right there in the Toolkit.

Even better: the Toolkit reviews the research it summarizes. Teachers and school leaders who want to know exactly why this strategy or topic has been prioritized get all the info they need to dig deeper and discover more.

Examples, Please

You have, no doubt, heard that feedback is essential for student learning.

Imagine that a teacher reviews the Toolkit’s list and determines that s/he really needs to work on this specific part of her craft.

Turning to section 4.4, this teacher quickly gathers several useful insights about the role of feedback in our work.

In the first place, the Toolkit draws a helpful distinction between feedback that helps the teacher — by giving us information about how much our students know and understand — and feedback that helps the student — by giving them structured ways to improve.

That simple distinction sounds almost too obvious to state out loud…but in my experince isn’t emphasized nearly often enough.

In the second place, the teacher will find several thoughtful prompts for further thought.

As the authors wisely say: “there is no simple recipe for giving powerful feedback.”

Should the teacher remind the student of the success criteria, or point out gaps between the current work and those criteria?

The Toolkit doesn’t offer prescriptive answers because research can’t do that. Research can provide us with options, and let teachers sort out the best ways to put all those options together.

And, if you’re a research nerd (as I am), you’ll be delighted to find almost 20 pages of discussion on their sources for these ideas, and their methods for sorting them all together.

TL;DR

You already know several specific cognitive-science informed teaching strategies? You to want a bigger picture?

The Great Teaching Toolkit will be a feast for you. (And yes: you can download it free!)

The New Science of Learning by Todd Zakrajsek
Erik Jahner, PhD
Erik Jahner, PhD

UntitledIn the ever-evolving realm of educational literature this is quickly becoming a classic. The New Science of Learning, first published in 2013, continues to emerge with each new edition as an invaluable compass for both students transitioning from high school to the world of academia as well as for educators seeking a refreshed pedagogical perspective and insights into the psychological experience of the learner. Todd D. Zakrajsek’s personal journey to becoming a better student and mentor has resulted in a treasure trove of continuously revised and reexamined learning insights you don’t want to miss.

The topics in this book are carefully selected, and while the author suggests that you should feel free to jump around these independently excellent chapters, following the given order adds a special touch to the journey. It kicks off with a deep dive into the art of perspective-taking – a fresh twist you might not expect in a book about improving your approaches to effective learning! It then dives into getting to know yourself better giving fresh perspective and clarification. Self-awareness and -regulation are key to effective learning and closely tied to our belief in our own abilities, known as self-efficacy. Students (and instructors) will be able to better frame their experience helping us become aware that feelings of doubt, like imposter syndrome, are more about societal pressures than personal flaws. The society and the individual mind are unavoidably linked. In line with current literature, the author reviews approaches that emphasize that focusing on our rough edges is not always the best strategy; a positive outlook can really shape our success! But the book is not only filled with strategies for reframing ourselves and our social situation, it is also chock-full of concrete strategies ranging from memory to lifestyle changes like sleep and exercise. But this is no simple review of what you have heard; it is well-researched, updated, and cited. As is clear from the author’s mission, it’s the start of a journey, not a conclusion.

Leading with personal investment, the author explains he faced challenges transitioning from high school to college, initially under-performing and wondering if he was the college type. But instead of giving up, he dove deep into understanding the mind, applying those insights to his own college journey. This passion not only led him to earn a PhD but also to craft three editions of this fantastic book! You will remain captivated by his deep insights and enduring commitment to understanding the student learning process. It’s a privilege to join him on this enlightening quest to master the art and science of learning.

Each chapter is well crafted, featuring an outstanding set of discussion questions accompanied by a summary and an extensive list of author-vetted resources. This structure not only enhances comprehension but also serves as a catalyst for deeper academic exploration. It sets itself up as a perfect complement to an academic program. In fact, just this morning, before finishing this review, I received feedback from one of my students who had further questions from articles in this book’s citations. Yes, this term, I incorporated a chapter into my curriculum, and the response was overwhelmingly positive. Many students expressed a keen interest in acquiring the complete book, viewing it as a promising tool for their academic progression, voicing that they wish they had seen it years ago. It’s a versatile resource suitable for various fields and contexts. For instance, if I were to spearhead a college adjustment program or oversee a learning assistance center, this book would be my go-to reference.

While I’ve appreciated previous editions of this work, the fresh content and perspectives in this edition make it an essential “New” addition to any personal library. Whether you’re a student, an educator, or simply someone with an interest in the intricacies of learning, The New Science of Learning is a must-read. Take the chance to get to know your own mind a little better.

The Cold-Calling Debate: Potential Perils, Potential Successes
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Some education debates focus on BIG questions:

high structure vs. low structure pedagogy?

technology: good or bad?

how much should teachers focus on emotions?

Other debatess focus on narrower topics. For instance: cold calling. (“Cold calling” means “calling on student who haven’t raised their hands.”)

Proponents generally see several benefits:

Cold calling helps broaden check-for-understanding strategies. That is: it lets teachers know that MANY students understand, not just those who raise their hands.

It increases accountability.

It adds classroom variety.

And so forth.

Opponents likewise raise several concerns. Primarily:

Cold-calling could stress students out — even the ones not being cold called. That is: even the possibility that I might be called on could addle me.

Also, cold calling signals a particular power dynamic — one that runs contrary to many school philosophies.

Because both sides focus on different measures of success or peril, this debate can be difficult to resolve.

The Story So Far

Back in 2020, a friend asked about the cold calling debate. I looked for research, and –honestly — didn’t find much. The result of that search was this blog post.

Kindergarten students sitting on the floor, listening to the teacher at the chalkboard

In brief, the only study I found (focusing on college sophmores) found more benefits and fewer perils.

Students who had been cold-called a) asked more questions later on, and b) felt less stress.

But, one study is just one study. And, if you don’t teach college sophomores, you might not want to rely on research with that age group.

Today’s News

Research might offer teachers useful guidance, but we shouldn’t accept all research without asking a few questions.

One way to ensure we’re getting GOOD research-based advice is to look for wide ranges of evidence: evidence from…

… primary school AND high school

… science class AND history class

… small AND large school

… Stockholm AND Johannesburg

And so forth.

Similarly, teachers should feel especially confident when reseachers use different methodologies to explore their questions.

For this reason, I was especially pleased to find a cold-calling study published just last year.

This study doesn’t go in for random distribution or control groups (staples of other research paradigms). Instead, it uses a technique called “multimodal interaction analysis.”

I haven’t run into this technique before, so I’m honestly a newbie here. But the headline is: researchers used videotapes to study 86 cold-calling interactions.

In their analysis, the break the interaction down into a second-by-second record — noting the spoken words, the hand gestures, the length of pauses, the direction of the teacher’s gaze. (In some ways, it reminds me of Nuthall’s The Hidden Lives of Learners.)

Heck, they even keep track of the teacher’s use of modal verbs. (No, I’m not entirely sure what modal verbs are in German.)

By tracking the interactions with such extraordinary precision, they’re able to look for nuances and patterns that go beyond simply: “the teacher did or didn’t cold call.”

Conclusions?

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the study’s broad conclusion sounds like this: details matter.

The researchers offer a detailed analysis of one cold call, showing how the teacher’s build up to the moment created just the right support, and just the right tone, for the student to succeed.

They likewise detailed another cold call where the teacher’s body language and borderline insulting framing (“do you dare to answer?”) seem to have alarmed a shy student in monosyllables.

By implication, this research suggests that both opponents and proponents are missing a key point.

We needn’t ask: “is cold calling good or bad?”

Instead, we should ask: “what precise actions — what words, what gestures, what habits — set the student up for a positive interaction? Which precise actions do the opposite?”

Once we get good answers, we can focus and practice! Let’s do more of the good stuff, and less of the harmful stuff.

TL;DR

“Is cold calling good or bad?” is probably the wrong question.

Recent research focusing on nuances of technique suggests that teachers can reduce the perils of cold calling to foster participation and enhance learning.


Morek, M., Heller, V., & Kinalzik, N. (2022). Engaging ‘silent’students in classroom discussions: a micro-analytic view on teachers’ embodied enactments of cold-calling practices. Language and Education, 1-19.

Navigating Complexity: When 1st Order Solutions Create 2nd Order Problems
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Here’s a common classroom problem.

As I’m explaning a complex concept, a student raises a hand.

“Just a moment,” I say, and finish my explanation.

Now I turn and smile at the student: “what was your question?” I ask.

All too often, the student answers, “I forgot my question.”

What’s going on here?

As is so often the case, the answer is: working memory overload.

Working memory HOLDS and PROCESSES information. When a student fails to hold and process, that’s working memory overload.

A primary school student wearing a backpack and sitting at a desk raises an eager hand.

In this case, my student was processing my explanation, and so failed to hold the question.

The solution?

It might seem simple. Don’t ask students to hold questions while they process explanations.

Instead, I should answer students’ questions right away. Problem solved….

When Solutions Create Problems

Wait just a moment.

This “solution” I just offered might solve the student’s problem.

At the same time, it might create new problems.

The student’s question — even a well-intentioned one — might throw my explanation off track.

My students might lose their tentative understanding of my complex explanation.

I might lose my own train of thought.

So I fixed one classroom problem but now have yet another one. YIKES.

What’s a teacher to do?

First Things First

This example — but one of many — might throw our entire project into question.

Teachers turn to psychology and neuroscience to solve classroom problems.

However, if these “research-based solutions” simply transform one problem into some other headache, why bother with the research?

We could save time by sticking with the old problem, right?

I think the fair answer to that question is: “actually, no.” Here’s why…

Teachers don’t need research to solve classroom problems. We need research to solve COMPLEX classroom problems.

When our classroom problems are simple, we just solve them on our own. We are — after all — teachers! We specialize in problem solving.

For that reason, we turn to research only when the problem isn’t simple.

And for that reason, we shouldn’t be surprised when the answer isn’t simple either.

OF COURSE we can’t fix the “questions-interrupting-my-explanation” problem with one easy research-based step.

If it were so simple a problem, we would have solved it without the research.

Changing the Lens

As I’ve explored this question with wise teachers in recent weeks, I’ve been struck by a pattern:

PROBLEM ONE requires SOLUTION ONE.

But: SOLUTION ONE creates PROBLEM TWO.

And: it’s often true that PROBLEM TWO comes from a different cognitive function than PROBLEM ONE.

So, in the example above, I started with a working memory problem: my student coudn’t hold and process information.

My solution (“take questions right away”) created another problem — but not a working memory problem.

When I answer questions mid-explanation, my students lose focus. That is, the working memory problem has been transformed into an attention problem.

To solve this second problem, I need to switch from working memory solutions to attention solutions.

In other words, I need to think about a separate cognitive function. I’ll find solutions to this 2nd order problem in a different research field.

Again with the Mantra

If you’ve ever heard me speak at a Learning and the Brain conference, you know my mantra: “don’t just do this thing; instead, think this way.”

In other words: psychology research can’t provide teachers with a list of “best practices.” The strategy that works in my 10th grade English classroom at a boarding school might not help 1st graders add numbers in a Montessori program.

But: the thought process I follow with my 10th graders might lead to beneficial solutions for those 1st graders. The answer (“do this thing”) might be different, but the mental pathway (“think this way”) will be the same.

The point I’m making here is: these thought processes might require us to leap from mental function to mental function in search of a more successful solution.

A solution to a long-term memory problem might uncover a motivational problem.

The solution to an alertness problem might promt an orienting problem.

When I reduce my students’ stress, I might ramp up their working memory difficulties.

And so forth.

When we understand research into all these topics, we can anticipate that these solutions might unveil an entirely different set of troubles.

And by moving nimbly from research topic to research topic, we can ultimately solve that complex problem that once seemed intractable.

All this nimbling about takes practice. And, ironically, it might threaten our own working memory capacity.

But once we get used to thinking this new way, we will arrive at solutions that fit our classrooms, and that work.

Collaborative Learning and Working Memory Overload: Good News or Bad?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Consider the following paradox:

Teachers need to give students instructions — of course we do!

After all, instructions help students do what they need to do, so that they can learn what we want them to learn.

3 middle school students working together on a problem from a textbook

At the same time, too many instructions might very well overwhelm working memory.

After all, the student has to HOLD the instructions in memory while PROCESSING each one individually. And: “holding while processing” is one handy definition of working memory function.

In brief: the right number of instructions can help learning, but too many instructions can impede learning.

I recently asked a group of wise and experienced teachers this question:

“Can you think of other teaching practices — like instructions — that are beneficial in small amounts, but might create working memory overload in large amounts?”

After some time to think and discuss, one teacher answered: group work.

After all, he mused, collaboration might simplify some mental processes. But collaboration itself creates additional mental taxes — all that negotiating and delegating and coordinating and explaining.

And disagreeing.

And resolving.

Are they ways that teachers can reduce those “mental taxes” so that students get the benifits without the penalties?

If only we had a research-based answer to those questions…

Inspired by this teacher’s observation, I hunted up this study.

Quadratics in Quito

To explore this question, researchers working in Quito, Ecuador worked with 15-year-olds solving quadratic equations.

Specifically, they wanted to know if practice collaborating helps students collaborate effectively.

As is always true, research design gets tricky. But the overall design makes sense.

Some students did practice solving quadratic equations collaboratively; others didn’t.

For a second round of math learning, all students were then sorted into groups for collaborative learning.

So, did students who practiced collaborating do better on later collaboration?

For complex equations: YES. Both three days later and seven days later, students who practiced collaborating did better solving problems than students who didn’t.

For simple equations: NO. If the mental work wasn’t very hard, students didn’t need to practice to collaborate effectively.

In light of these findings, the researchers’ recommendations make good sense.

If learners are novices, learning tasks are complex, and information distribution demands [extensive cooperation], teachers should prepare group members … using similar problems.

If task information does not demand [extensive cooperation], it is not necessary for the teachers to prepare learners to collaborate.

I want to highlight one part of this summary: “using similar problems.”

This research team emphasizes that “collaboration” is NOT a general skill. Collaboration will look different depending on the precise demands of the discipline and the topic.

So: students who “practiced” were given a VERY specific format for learning how to collaborate on this task.

If we want to get the benefits of practice for our own students, we should be sure to tailor the practice in very specific ways.

The Story Behind the Story: an Analogy and a Principle

A research article like this study always begins with a summary of earlier research findings, conclusions, and questions.

This summary includes a particularly helpful foundational inquiry.

When does collaboration increase WM load so much as to threaten learning?

When does collaboration reduce WM load enough to promote learning?

Is there some sort of taxonomy to consider or principle to explore?

To explain, I’ll start with an analogy.

Imagine I want to illuminate a yard at night.

For all sorts of reasons, it would be simplest to have one lamp to do so. Having multiple lamps just adds to the complexity and expense of the project.

So, if my yard is small enough to be covered by one lamp, then I should use one. Adding more lamps makes the project worse — more complicated, more expensive — not better.

But at some point, a yard gets big enough to need multiple lamps. If I use only one lamp, I just can’t illuminate the full yard.

In this case, the additional expense and complexity of having multiple lamps provides a meaningful benefit.

You can see where this is going.

Here’s a potential principle:

If a cognitive problem is simple enough, then one student can solve it on her own.

Adding other students (“collaborative leaning”!) increases the WM complexity of the situation without providing any additional benefit.

In this case, each student’s mental effort has become less effective, not more effective.

If, on the other hand, a cognitive problem gets complex enough, then it goes beyond any one student’s cognitive capacity.

In that case, the problem benefits from additional students’ cognitive efforts — even though all those extra students do increase the complexity of the problem.

At some tipping point, when a problem gets complicated enough, it needs to be divided into sub-tasks — despite the complexity of managing that work.

At that tipping point, well-structured and precisely-practiced collaboration probably is more beneficial than harmful.

TL;DR

Groupwork (probably) increases WM demands on simple cognitive tasks, but reduces WM demands for complex cognitive tasks.

To get the most benefits from collaboration, students should practice that skill — and teachers should tailor the practice to the precise demands of the cognitive work.


Zambrano, J., Kirschner, F., Sweller, J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2019). Effects of group experience and information distribution on collaborative learning. Instructional Science47, 531-550.

The Dangers of “The Big Ask”: In Defense of Stubborn (?) Teachers
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Let’s face it: teaching is hard.

I’ve been a classroom teacher for roughly 20 years — how do I count summer school? — and I still find the work exhillarating, exhausting, baffling, uplifting, frustrating, humbling, and joyous.

Exasperated teacher standing in the middle of a chaotic classroom, holding her hands on her head and shouting

And that was Tuesday.

And: I think I’m not the only one who finds teaching to be an extra-ordinary challenge. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I love it. But GOSH it’s hard.

This hard-won experience leads me — and perhaps you — to two conclusions:

First: people who haven’t taught in the classroom don’t fully understand the challenges of the work.

Until you’ve tried to follow a scrupulously-devised lesson plan despite the fact that an un-announced fire-drill is in progress, two students have switched sections, three don’t have their notebooks, and four don’t think the cell-phone policy applies at just this moment…you just don’t really know.

How could you? It’s “Misson Impossible: Chalkdust” in here.

Second: I need all the help I can get.

No, really.

You’ve got some research that might …

… help me create a more effective lesson plan?

… explain how attention really works?

… suggest study strategies to help my students learn?

… foster motivation, at the beginning of a lesson on grammar?

I’m all ears. Please. I’m practically begging here…

My Learning and the Brain Journey

I attended my first LatB conference in 2008; the topic was The Science of Attention.

I IMMEDIATELY realized that this conference was just what I needed. So much wisdom and advice. So many compelling suggestions.

And, so many graphs and pictures of brains!

I returned to the classroom and started rethinking everything.

What should be rewrite policy be?

Should my classroom decorations be in primary colors?

What’s the right number of new vocabulary words to teach per class?

I had research-y answers to all those questions.

After several years of attending conferences, I went back to grad school and got a degree combining education, psychology, and neuroscience.

And, in addition to teaching, I started training other teachers.

Now I offered LOTS of advice of my own:

Because working memory does this, teachers should do that.

Because long-term memory benefits from this, teachers should do that.

Because stress affects this…you get the picture.

Many teachers appreciated all this guidance. But some obviously didn’t.

For whatever reason, they just didn’t want to do what I was telling them to do!

I was genuinely surprised; after all, I knew I was right because the research said so!

“The Big Ask”

Over time, I’ve come to realize that those teachers didn’t want to do what I was telling them — and “what the research said” — because I had forgotten the first lesson described above.

I mean: yes (lesson #2), “I need all the help I can get.” So, research-based advice MIGHT help.

But also,

Yes (lesson #1), “people who haven’t taught in the classroom don’t fully understand the challenges of the work.” So, research-based advice might not apply to this classroom, this topic, this teacher, or this student.

In other words,

When I say to teachers, “you should change the way you teach because research says so, ” I’m making a REALLY BIG ASK.

After all, those students are ultimately their responsibility, not mine.

Yes, I have taught — but I teach English to 10th graders at a very selective school. I should be very careful when offering guidance to, say …

… 2nd grade teachers who work with struggling readers, or

… those with lots of students on the Autism spectrum, or

… teachers who work in different cultures.

Because I do know research well, and I know classrooms fairly well, I can make those Big Asks. But I should be humble about doing so. And I should be respectful when a teacher says, “your ‘research-based advice’ …

… conflicts with our school’s mission, or

… might work with college students, but probably won’t work with 2nd graders, or

… requires personality traits that I don’t have.”

Yes, I think teachers should listen thoughtfully to the guidance that comes from research. And, I think those of us who cite research should listen thoughtfully to the classroom specifics, and the experience, of teachers.

Teachers who resist ‘research-based advice’ might seem “stubborn,” but they also might be right.

The Story Behind the Story

In last week’s blog post, I summarized research about using gestures to teach specific science concepts. I also sounded a few notes of caution:

I don’t fully understand the concept of “embodied cognition,” and

I worry that a few very specific studies will be used to insist that teachers make broad changes to our classroom work.

Even as I wrote that post, I could hear colleagues’ voices in my head: “why are you always so grouchy? Why don’t you listen when people with PhDs say ‘this is the Next Important Thing’?”

The answer to those question is this week’s blog post.

I’m ‘grouchy’ because I worry our field is constantly making Big Asks of teachers.

We often make those Asks without acknowledging a) the limits of our research knowledge, and b) the breadth of teachers’ experience.

I am indeed optimistic about combining cognitive psychology research with teacherly experience to improve teaching and foster learning.

To make that combination work, we should respect “stubborn” teachers by making Respectful Asks.