This site synthesizes common themes from the pedagogical literature about student learning that have a solid foundation of research behind them.
These five principles will help guide your teaching approach. For each principle we list concrete strategies that you can use or adapt in your teaching.
- Working memory is limited
- Retrieval of information strengthens learning
- Spaced and interleaved practice improves recall
- Active engagement with the material improves learning
- Metacognitive strategies improve learning
How do I use the learning sciences literature to make decisions about my teaching approaches?
Upon learning about a suggested approach from the pedagogical literature, consider these questions when deciding whether to incorporate it into your teaching:
- What is the strength of support in the literature?
- Does this approach make sense for my subject and my comfort as an educator?
- Does this approach make sense for my students? Could this do harm?
- How can I find out more about using this approach?
How do I use this resource?
The strategies are suggestions of what to do. The principles are proposed explanations for why the strategies work. We suggest exploring each principle by asking yourself how you address the principle in your course design and teaching practice. Being aware of the underlying principles can inform your decisions to modify or adapt some of the strategies. Not every suggestion will be appropriate for your students, discipline, and unique teaching and learning context.
Whether new to or already aware of these principles and strategies, when making decisions about teaching approaches consider the evidence-based principles and strategies presented here while weighing your own expertise as an instructor as well as the learning needs of your students. We hope the evidentiary basis will provide support for their continued use.
What about Learning Styles?
The concept of "learning styles" refers to the idea that individuals have preferred ways of learning such as visual, auditory, or kinesthetic in which they learn best and that teaching to students’ preferred learning style will improve their learning. However, this idea is not supported by research evidence. Studies have failed to find consistent, empirical evidence to support the idea that individuals have a specific learning style and that teaching to that style leads to improved learning outcomes (Coffield, 2004; Dinsmore, 2022). Instead, the research suggests that individuals may have preferences for certain types of information presentation, but these preferences do not necessarily translate into improved learning.
The idea of learning styles can be problematic because it can lead to students pigeonholing themselves into a particular learning style category and believe they need to be taught in that style, rather than being open to a variety of instructional methods. This can limit students' exposure to new and diverse learning experiences and reduce their ability to adapt to different learning environments.
References
Agarwal, P. K. & Bain, P. M. (2019). Powerful Teaching, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Ambrose, S. A., M. W. Bridges, M. DiPietro, M. C. Lovett & M. K. Norman (2010). How Learning Works: 7 Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Angelo, T. A. & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers, 2nd. Ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Brez, C., Hampton, E. M., Behrendt, L., Brown, L., & Powers, J. (2020). Failure to replicate: Testing a growth mindset intervention for college student success. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 42(6), 460-468, https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2020.1806845.
Brown, P. C., Roediger, H. L. & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make It Stick. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA.
Brunsman, B. B. & McEntarffer, R. (2022). Lessons from Cognitive Psychology in Selective Attention. The Learning Scientist, Sep. 1, https://www.learningscientists.org/blog/2022/9/1-1.
Burgess, A., van Diggele, C., Roberts, C.& Mellis, C.(2020). Team-based learning: design, facilitation and participation. BMC Medical Education, 20 (Suppl 2), 461, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02287-y.
Carpenter, S. K., Pan, S. C. & Butler, A. C. (2022). The science of effective learning with spacing and retrieval practice. Nature Reviews Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00089-1.
Coffield, F. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre.
Cogliano, M., Bernacki, M. L., & Kardash, C. M. (2021). A metacognitive retrieval practice intervention to improve undergraduates’ monitoring and control processes and use of performance feedback for classroom learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(7), 1421-1440, https://doi-org.ezp3.lib.umn.edu/10.1037/edu0000624.
Colliot, T. & Jamet, E. (2018). Does self-generating a graphic organizer while reading improve students’ learning? Computers & Education, 126, 13-22.
Cooper, K. M., Schinske, J. N. & Tanner, K. D. (2021). Reconsidering the share of a think-pair-share: Emerging limitations, alternatives, and opportunities for research. CBE: Life Sciences Education, 20:fe1, 1. https://doi.org 10.1187/cbe.20-08-0200.
Cowan, N. (2000). The magical number 4 in short term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavior & Brain Sciences, 24, 87-185.
de Jong, T. (2009). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2): 105-134.
Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E. & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332(6031), 862-864.
Dinsmore, D. L., Fryer, L. K. & Parkinson, M. M. (2022). The learning styles hypothesis is false, but there are patterns of student characteristics that are useful. Theory Into Practice, https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2022.2107333.
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.
Dweck, C. (2007). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, Ballentine, N.Y, N.Y.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H. & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 111(23), 8410-8415.
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74.
Halpern, D. F. & M. D. Hakel (2003). Applying the Science of Learning to the University and Beyond. Change (July/August): 36-41.
Jensen, J. L., Kummer, T. A. & d M Godoy, P. D. (2015). Improvements from a flipped classroom may simply be the fruits of active learning. CBE Life Sciences Education, 14(1):ar5, https://doi: 10.1187/cbe.14-08-0129.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Smith, K. A., (2007). The state of cooperative learning In postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 15-29.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Smith, K. A., (2014). Cooperative learning: Improving university instruction by basing practice on validated theory. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25, (3&4), 85-118.
Khanna, M. M., Brack, A. S. B. & Finken, L. L. (2013). Short- and Long-Term Effects of Cumulative Finals on Student Learning. Teaching of Psychology, 40(3): 175-182.
Kleiman, A. M., Forkin, K. T., Bechtel, A. J., Collins, S. R., Ma, J. Z., Nemergut, E. C. & Huffmyer, J. L. (2017). Generative retrieval improves learning and retention of cardiac anatomy using transesophageal echocardiography. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 124(5), 1440-1444.
Lang, J. M. (2016). Small teaching. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Larsen, D. P., Butler, A. C. & Roediger, H. L. 3rd (2009). Repeated testing improves long-term retention relative to repeated study: a randomised controlled trial. Medical Education, 43(12): 1174-1181.
McCrudden, M. T. & Rapp, D. N. (2017). How visual displays affect cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 623-639.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
Nehm, R. H., Finch, S. J. & Sbeglia, G. C. (2022). Is active learning enough? The contributions of misconception-focused instruction and active-learning dosage on student learning of evolution. Bioscience, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biac073.
Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brunken, R. (2010). Cognitive Load Theory, Cambridge, New York.
Prince, M. (2004). Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231.
Robinson, D. H. & Kiewra, K. A. (1995). Visual argument: Graphic organizers are superior to outlines in improving learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 455-467, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.87.3.455.
Ruhl, K.L., Hughes, C.A. & Schloss, P.J. (1987). Using the pause procedure to enhance lecture recall. Teacher Education and Special Education, 10, 14-18.
Schmidt, H. G., Rotgans, J. L. & Yew, E. H. (2011). The process of problem-based learning: What works and why. Medical Education, 45 (8), 792-806.
Sisk, V. F., Burgoyne, A. P., Sun, J., Butler, J. L. & Macnamara, B. N. (2018). To What Extent and Under Which Circumstances Are Growth Mind-Sets Important to Academic Achievement? Two Meta-Analyses. Psychological Science, 29(4), 549-571, https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617739704.
Stanton, J. D., Sebesta, A. J. & Dunlosky, J. (2021). Fostering metacognition to support student learning and performance. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 20:2.
Sotola, L. K. & Crede, M. (2021).Regarding Class Quizzes: A Meta-analytic Synthesis of Studies on the Relationship Between Frequent Low-Stakes Testing and Class Performance. Educational Psychology Review 33, 407-426, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09563-9.
Tanner, K. (2013). Structure Matters: Twenty-One Teaching Strategies to Promote Student Engagement and Cultivate Classroom Equity. CBE – Life Sciences Education, 12:322-331. https://www.lifescied.org/doi/full/10.1187/cbe.13-06-0115.
Theobald, M. (2021). Self-regulated learning training programs enhance university students’ academic performance, self-regulated learning strategies, and motivation: A meta-analysis. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 66, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2021.101976.
Ting, F. S. T., Shroff, R. H., Lam, W. H., Garcia, R. C. C., Chan, C. L., Tsang, W. K., Ezeahuzie, N.O. (2022). A Meta-analysis of Studies on the Effects of Active Learning on Asian Students’ Performance in STEM Subjects. Asia-Pacific Education Research, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-022-00661-6.
Titsworth, B. S., Kiewra, K. A. (2004). Spoken organizational lecture cues and student notetaking as facilitators of student learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, v29 n4 p447-461.
Waldrop, M. M. (2015). Why we are teaching science wrong, and how to make it right. Nature, 523, 272-274.
Walker,L. & Warfa,A. R. M. (2017).Process oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL®) marginally effects student achievement measures but substantially increases the odds of passing a course. PLOS ONE 12(10): e0186203, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186203.
Yang, C., Potts, R. & Shanks, D. R. (2018). Enhancing learning and retrieval of new information: a review of the forward testing effect. npj Science of Learning, 3, 8, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-018-0024-y.