How the Science of Learning Improves Educational Practice
Lee Pace
Back in 2002 when I started teaching, there was lots of focus on being a creative teacher and making sure we were using our knowledge of learning styles to engage students. Teaching back then was viewed more of an intuitive art form rather than a scientific endeavor. New ideas and initiatives were more seductive than scientific, a little theatrical rather than thoughtful. Things has changed. Thankfully.
Learning styles have been dismissed as a myth (although they still grip many) and new approaches we once readily accepted are now put under the microscope of critical thinking, where teachers want to know the evidence backing up new initiatives.
As research evidence became more widely used as a vehicle for improvement, a whole paradigm shift in teaching took hold. Back in 2002 I’d wax lyrical about how students should be finding things out for themselves through discovery; I’d certainly be called a ‘progressive.’ Fast forward 20ish years and now I wax lyrically about the power of direct instruction. It still irks me a little that I’d moved across the spectrum to be called a ‘Traditionalist;’ being called a progressive always felt a bit ‘cool.’ The trigger for this ‘lurch’ was the popularity of Rosenshine’s Principles of Instruction – the influence of this research, I think has leveraged more change in education than any governmental policy of the 21st century. Seventeen principles, explained with such brevity, changed the landscape.
I do think the phrase, ‘The Science of Learning’ is a little problematic, as it suggests there’s one proven way to teach that will make learning happen. I think it’s far better to see it as a collection of research from teachers, psychologists, cognitive scientists and a range of intellectual sources who make it their jobs to research how we learn. As with all sciences, certainty isn’t a given. The science of learning provides us with the means on which to make an informed choice about our pedagogy. It means stepping away from intuition and placing faith in something we’re a little unsure of. However, a caveat, a friend of mind recently described education’s relationship with research as immature; he didn’t mean it as a sarcastic rhetoric, he meant that we still have a lot to learn from it. Research and how it translates to the classroom is a journey filled with traps.
I feel this in my own practice. There’s a lot of research about the power of choral response, where students respond to a question or phrase given by the teacher. As the name suggests, all students give the same response in unison. Intuitively, I don’t like it, professionally I use it a lot. I could fall into the trap of sticking to old routines but I’ve learned to use evidence even when it feels a little uncomfortable.
My research recommendations
I’ve witnessed too often teachers happily buying into retrieval practice techniques, beautifully crafted writing schemes, questioning frameworks and many more decent ideas. The problem is, they often don’t have the foundational knowledge to understand how the technique is working and therefore fail to develop it further or adapt it to meet the needs of their students.
In my world, I have two foundational ‘biggies’ that I swear by. I’m a huge advocate of Cognitive Load Theory and many of us have seen ‘that’ tweet from Dylan Wiliam where he considers it to be a piece of research all teachers should know. I agree and teachers should know it well!
My journey with CLT has transformed my understanding of how students learn and, consequently, how I design my lessons and the school’s curriculum. It has sharpened my empathy for the cognitive challenges learners face and equipped me with a clear, evidence‑based roadmap for alleviating those challenges. The result is a classroom environment where students are encouraged to think deeply, engage actively and most importantly, learn well.
CLT has given me a solid mental model of human cognitive architecture and made both my teaching and my leadership more thoughtful. It is not merely an academic curiosity; it is a practical, research‑backed guide that underpins our school’s educational philosophy. Using CLT ensures that every instructional decision is purposeful, cognitively sound, and ultimately, student‑centered. Learning is carefully broken down into its component parts and bit by bit, reshaped for our learners.
Complimenting CLT, formative assessment forms another bedrock of my practice. My definition of formative assessment is pretty straightforward: it’s gathering evidence of learners’ understanding during the learning process and responding to it. Robust research, particularly by Dylan Wiliam has illuminated how formative assessment can dramatically improve student achievement, motivation, and equity. Understanding this research is no longer optional; it is a core component of our professional competence.
Research tells us effective formative assessment narrows attainment gaps. Looking right back to the ‘birth’ of formative assessment when ‘Inside the Black Box’ by Wiliam and Black was published, a plethora of studies have shown that embedding formative assessment into classroom practice benefits all students but perhaps most importantly, it benefits lower attaining students the most.
Why is formative assessment so transformational? The mechanisms are clear: precise feedback, continuous monitoring and adapting practice give lower‑attaining learners the scaffolding they need to catch up, while simultaneously raising standards for the whole class. For any educator committed to equity, mastering formative‑assessment practices should be regarded as essential professional knowledge.
In my own classroom and that of my professional colleague’s, formative assessment is integral to practice. Thoughtful questioning, mini-whiteboards and pens and a cycle of always connecting the task with the outcome has bought enormous benefits.
I’m always mindful that when translating research into my practice that the research was not conducted with my students. It does not give me the answers, it is not always directly applicable. However, it does help me to predict what works, it gives me a ‘best bet’ to give my students the best chance. It is therefore, in my opinion, morally imperative that we use the evidence available.