Four Simple Strategies from Cognitive Psychology for the Classroom

Megan A. Smith

Rhode Island College

Christopher R. Madan

Boston College

Yana Weinstein

University of Massachusetts Lowell

In Press at E-xcellence in Teaching

To be published March, 2017

 Abstract

Psychological scientists have made significant advances in applying cognitive research to

education. Here, we provide a concise, teacher-ready overview of four evidence-based teaching

strategies: (1) providing visual examples; (2) teaching students to explain and to do; (3) spaced

practice; and (4) frequent quizzing. Converging evidence from controlled laboratory studies and

classroom research support their use to enhance student learning. We briefly describe the science

behind the strategies and provide examples for use in the classroom.

Megan Biosketch
Megan Smith is an Assistant Professor at Rhode Island College. She received her Masters in
Experimental Psychology at Washington University in St. Louis and her PhD in Cognitive
Psychology from Purdue University. Megans area of expertise is in human learning and
memory, and applying the science of learning in educational contexts. Megan is passionate
about bridging the gap between research and practice in education. In an effort to promote more
conversations between researchers and practitioners, she co-founded The Learning Scientists
(www.learningscientists.org). Her research program focuses on retrieval-based learning
strategies, and the way activities promoting retrieval can improve meaningful learning in the
classroom. Megan addresses empirical questions such as: What retrieval practice formats
promote student learning? What retrieval practice activities work well for different types of
learners? And, why does retrieval increase learning?

Chris Biosketch
Christopher Madan is a Postdoctoral Fellow at Boston College. He received his PhD in
Psychology from the University of Alberta. Chris area of expertise is in human memory and
decision making, particularly in factors that can make some information more memorable. He
studies the role of factors intrinsic to the to-be-remembered information, such as emotion and
reward, as well as mnemonic strategies, particularly the Method of Loci. His research program is
particularly interested in how biases in memory encoding and retrieval can manifest in other
cognitive domains. Chris uses a variety of methodological approaches, including cognitive
psychology, neuroimaging, and computational modeling to investigate what makes memories
last.

Yana Biosketch
Yana Weinstein is an Assistant Professor at University of Massachusetts, Lowell. She received
her PhD in Psychology from University College London and had 4 years of postdoctoral training
at Washington University in St. Louis. The broad goal of her research is to help students make
the most of their academic experience. Yana's research interests lie in improving the accuracy of
memory performance and the judgments students make about their cognitive functions. Yana
tries to pose questions that have direct applied relevance, such as: How can we help students
choose optimal study strategies? Why are test scores sometimes so surprising to students? And
how does retrieval practice help students learn? She recently co-founded The Learning Scientists
(www.learningscientists.org) with Megan Smith.
 Scientists focusing on educational research questions have a great deal of information

that can be utilized in the classroom. However, there is not often bidirectional communication

between researchers and practitioners in the field of education as a whole (see Roediger, 2013).

In this article, we describe the science behind four evidence-based teaching strategies: (1)

providing visual examples, (2) teaching students to explain and to do, (3) spaced practice, and (4)

frequent quizzing. Below, we provide concise overview of these strategies and examples of how

they can be implemented in the classroom before describing the science behind each strategy:

1. Providing visual examples

Relevant cognitive concepts: Dual coding
Description: Combining pictures with words.
Application examples (using social psychology topics):
o Students can draw examples of factors determining liking or loving. For example, two
people who are close vs. far away, two people who are similar vs. different, or a
visual depiction of reciprocity
o Instructors can make sure to provide video depictions of experiments where available
to go with verbal descriptions (e.g., Milgram, misattribution of arousal)
2. Teaching students to explain and do
Relevant cognitive concepts: Elaborative interrogation; Levels of processing; Enactment
effect
Description: Asking and explaining why a factor or concept is true; asking students to
perform an action.
Application examples (using social psychology topics):
o Students can ask and explain what factors contribute to whether one person helps
another person.
o Instructors can provide students with example scenarios of a person in need of help
and ask students to describe and explain why they think a passerby may or may not
help.
3. Spaced practice
Relevant cognitive concepts: Spacing; Interleaving; Distributed practice; Optimal lab
 Description: Creating a study schedule that spreads study activities out over time.
Application examples (using social psychology topics):
o Students can block off time to study for 30 minutes each day rather than only
studying right before a test or exam.
o Instructors can assign online quizzes that interleave questions from various chapters.
4. Frequent quizzing
Relevant cognitive concepts: Testing effect; Retrieval practice; Retrieval-based learning
Description: Bringing learned information to mind from long-term memory.
Application examples (using social psychology topics):
o Students can practice writing out everything they know about a topic, for example
conformity, obedience, and bystander effects.
o Instructors can give frequent low-stakes quizzes in the classroom or online to
encourage retrieval practice.
Instructors can find free teaching materials for each of these strategies on the Learning Scientists

website (www.learningscientists.org/downloadable-materials).

We focus on these strategies because they were highlighted in a recent policy report from

the National Council on Teacher Quality (Pomerance, Greenberg, & Walsh, 2016), which

identified key teaching strategies based on evidence from the science of learning. The report

found that few of the 48 teacher-training textbooks they examined cover any of these learning

principles welland that none covered more than two of them (but see Thomas & Goering,

2016). These strategies also reiterate recommendations made in an earlier guide commissioned

by the U.S. Department of Education (Pashler, Bain, Bottge, Graesser, Koedinger, McDaniel, &

Metcalfe, 2007; also see Dunlosky, Rawson, Marsh, Nathan, & Willingham, 2013). Thus, there

seems to be a gap between the research converging evidence from controlled laboratory studies

and classroom studies and practical use of the strategies in education. While there are in-depth

reviews on each of these strategies, here we provide a concise, teacher-ready overview of these

strategies and how they could be applied in the classroom.

1. Providing visual examples

Learning can be substantially enhanced if verbal information is accompanied by visual

examples. This coupling of verbal and visual information is supported by the dual-coding

theory (Paivio, 1986). This theory attributes the mnemonic benefits of providing visual

examples to different cognitive processes associated with processing words and images, or even

words that describe concrete ideas. This can be particularly useful when teaching abstract

concepts (see Figure 1 for an example, http://www.learningscientists.org/dual-coding-example),

as associating concrete and abstract terms can improve memory for the abstract information

(Madan, Glaholt, & Caplan, 2010).

Additionally, there is clear evidence that memory for pictures is superior to memory for

words (Paivio & Csapo, 1969; 1973). However, this effect is fundamentally distinct from the

notion of learning styles, where information to be learned is presented in a learners preferred

modality. This type of differentiation is not supported by cognitive research (Rohrer & Pashler,

2012) and has often been described as a myth or urban legend (Coffield, Moseley, Hall, &

Ecclestone, 2004; Hattie & Yates, 2014; Kirschner & van Merrinboer, 2013). Rather than

diagnosing each students style and matching instruction for each individual, teachers can couple

visual examples with text for all students.

2. Teaching students to explain and to do

One of the most effective methods to improve learning of information is to have students

engage with the material more deeply, also known as elaboration (Craik & Lockhart, 1972; also

see Lockhart & Craik, 1990). Elaboration has been defined in many ways, but most simply it
involves connecting new information to pre-existing knowledge. Perhaps William James said it

best: The art of remembering is the art of thinking [...] our conscious effort should not be so

much to impress or retain [knowledge] as to connect it with something already there. The

connecting is the thinking; and, if we attend clearly to the connection, the connected thing, will

certainly be likely to remain within recall (James, 1899, p. 143). Two forms of elaboration are

readily applicable to classroom learning: having students explain why something is the case, and

having students perform actions.

Elaborative processing can be fostered by having students question the material that they

are studying; for instance, by asking them to produce their own explanations for why a fact is

true, rather than just presenting them with a complete explanation (Pressley, McDaniel, Turnure,

Wood, & Ahmad, 1987). This elaboration technique is flexible enough to work in a variety of

different learning situations (e.g., for students working alone or in groups, Kahl & Woloshyn,

1994). However, work on elaborative interrogation outside of the lab is just beginning (Smith,

Holliday, and Austin, 2010) and we need stronger evidence from the classroom before we can

confidently claim that this technique is helpful (Dunlosky et al., 2013). Another relevant

technique is that of self-explanation, where students walk themselves through the steps they take

during learning. This technique is helpful both when students engage in it spontaneously (Chi,

Bassok, Lewis, Reimann, & Glaser, 1989), and also when teachers prompt students to produce

the self-explanations (Chi, De Leeuw, Chiu, & LaVancher, 1994).

When feasible, the most elaborative way to process information is by doing. When

information could either be learned by hearing about an action, watching someone else do the

action, or having the student themselves perform the action, retention was best in cases where the

student performed the action themselves (Cohen, 1981; Engelkamp & Cohen, 1991). This action
component can build upon the previously described dual-coding theory (Engelkamp & Zimmer,

1984; Madan & Singhal, 2012). In the classroom, this type of learning could be supported by

hands-on activities (e.g., science experiments, or getting students to draw their own diagrams;

Wammes et al., 2016) or field trips to museums or nature sites.

3. Spaced practice

We often tell our students that cramming doesnt work. That is good advicebut is not

entirely true. As many students have discovered, crammingan intense study period that occurs

shortly before ones memory is to be testedsometimes does work. Cramming often produces

adequate performance on an imminent exam (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006); unless the cramming

is done instead of sleep, in which case the sleep deprivation outweighs any gains from cramming

(Gillen-ONeel, Huynh, & Fuligni, 2013). The information learned through cramming, however,

will subsequently be rapidly forgotten (Bjork & Bjork, 2011). In order for information to be

retained more sustainably and over longer periods of time, it needs to be revisited on multiple

occasions spaced out over time. This is known as distributed practice, or the spacing effect,

which has been in the literature since Ebbinghaus first discovered it in the late 19th century

(Ebbinghaus, 1885/1913). Despite much converging evidence over the past 100 years (see

Cepeda, Pashler, Vul, Wixted, & Rohrer, 2006), this practice has not made its way into

mainstream education (Kang, 2016).

In the cognitive literature, a distinction is made between spacing and interleaving, i.e.,

switching back and forth between different topics or question types within a topic (Rohrer &

Taylor, 2007). That is, Storm, Bjork, and Storm (2010) showed that interleaving produces

benefits that cannot entirely be accounted for by spacing. However, in practice, it is hard to
imagine an educationally relevant situation in which spacing and interleaving would be

dissociated. We propose, then, that the theoretical distinction between spacing and interleaving

may not be critical in terms of practical applications. Instead, teachers can focus more generally

on trying to provide students with opportunities to space their studying.

One implementation issue is that spacing hurts performance in the short-term, which

makes it less appealing. Students typically feel overconfident when they cram, while spacing out

learning leads them to feel relatively less confident (Bjork, 1999); but this is a desirable

difficulty, which helps learning in the long-term (Bjork, 1994). When making predictions about

future performance based on different study schedules, students tend to underestimate the

benefits of spacing (Logan, Castel, Haber, & Viehman, 2012). Another reason why spacing

might not be used by students as often as wed like was recently suggested by Kang (2016): this

strategy may require more advance planning than simply studying one topic until a saturation

point is reached. More research is necessary to fine-tune implementation of spaced study

schedules, and would preferably involve teachers in classrooms.

4. Frequent quizzing

The use of retrieval practice to aid learning has been a major focus of the applied

cognitive literature in the past decade. As with spacing, the finding that testing strengthens

memory is not new (Gates, 1917). However, the message that testing helps learning is somewhat

politically charged and often lost when teachers hear the word testing because this activates

ideas related to high-stakes standardized testing. Its important to note that frequent testing does

not have to be presented as a formal quiz; any activity that promotes retrieval of target

information should help (e.g., Karpicke, Blunt, Smith, & Karpicke, 2014).
 Although the mechanisms behind the retrieval practice effect are not yet fully understood,

the findings are quite clear: when preparing for a test, practicing retrieving information from

memory is a much more effective strategy that restudying that information (Roediger &

Karpicke, 2006). This is true even when there is no opportunity to receive feedback on the quiz

(Smith, Roediger, & Karpicke, 2013), as long as performance on the practice quiz is not too low

(Kang, McDermott, & Roediger, 2007). The only notable exception to the retrieval practice

effect is when the final test is occurring immediately after study, in which case restudying can

sometimes be more effective than testing (Smith et al., 2013). However, unless students are

reviewing their notes before walking into the exam room, in general it is quite rare for students to

be anticipating an immediate test situation while studying. Thus, in regular exam preparation

situations, a strong recommendation can be made from the literature: students ought to practice

retrieval.

A good way to integrate quizzes into regular teaching is to provide opportunities for

retrieval practice during learning; quiz questions interspersed during learning produce the same

benefit to long-term retention as quiz questions presented at the end of a learning episode such as

a lecture (Weinstein, Nunes, & Karpicke, 2016). In addition to providing retrieval practice, this

method also boosts learning by maintaining test expectancy throughout the learning experience

(Weinstein, Gilmore, Szpunar, & McDermott, 2014). A combined benefit of retrieval practice

and spacing can be gained from engaging in retrieval practice multiple times. Creating the

specific spacing schedule for a particular educational situation is tricky because it depends how

strong the original memory is, and how quickly forgetting is going to happen for that information

(Cepeda, Vul, Rohrer, & Wixted, 2008). Without the use of sophisticated software to schedule
spacing, a more practical suggestion may be for teachers to include quiz questions from previous

topics throughout the semester, in order to facilitate a reasonable amount of spaced practice.

Conclusion

There is an unending supply of suggestions on how students can learn information more

effectively. Here we draw from established cognitive psychology research and distill four simple

strategies to enhance classroom learning. These four strategies are: (1) providing visual

examples, (2) teaching students to explain and to do, (3) spaced practice, and (4) frequent

quizzing. More specifically: (1) Try to present information with both text and pictures; (2) Get

students to explain the information they are learning, or if possible, have them act things out; (3)

Create opportunities to revisit information over the course of a semester; and (4) Include low-

stakes quizzes throughout learning to provide retrieval practice. Critically, each of these

strategies is strongly supported by extant research and can be readily implemented in the

classroom.
 References

Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings.

In J. Metcalfe and A. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp.

185205). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bjork, R. A. (1999). Assessing our own competence: Heuristics and illusions. In D. Gopher and

A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention and Performance XVII. Cognitive regulation of performance:

Interaction of theory and application (pp. 435-459). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating

desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In M. A. Gernsbacher, R. W. Pew, L. M.

Hough, & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating

fundamental contributions to society (pp. 56-64). New York: Worth Publishers.

Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in

verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 354-

380. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354

Chi, M. T., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations:

How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science,

13, 145-182. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1302_1

Chi, M. T., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations

improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477. doi: 10.1016/0364-

0213(94)90016-7

Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in

post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. London: Learning & Skills Research

Centre.
Cohen, R. L. (1981). On the generality of some memory laws. Scandinavian Journal of

Psychology, 22, 267281.

Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory

research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671684.

Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. L., 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, 4-58. doi: 10.1177/1529100612453266

Ebbinghaus, H. E. (1885/1913). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology. New York:

Teachers College, Columbia University.

Engelkamp, J., & Cohen, R. L. (1991). Current issues in memory of action events. Psychological

Research, 53, 175-182. doi: 10.1007/BF00941384

Engelkamp, J., & Zimmer, H. D. (1984). Motor programme information as a separable memory

unit. Psychological Research, 46, 283299. doi: 10.1007/BF00308889

Gates, A. I. (1917). Recitation as a factor in memorizing. New York: The Science Press

Gillen-ONeel, C., Huynh, V. W., & Fuligni, A. J. (2013). To study or to sleep? The academic

costs of extra studying at the expense of sleep. Child Development, 84, 133-142. doi:

10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01834.x

Hattie, J., & Yates, G. (2014). Visible learning and the science of how we learn. New York:

Routledge.

James, W. (1899). Talks to teachers on psychology: And to students on some of life's ideals. New

York: Henry Holt and Company. Accessible from

https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/j/james/william/talks/.
Kahl, B., & Woloshyn, V. E. (1994). Using elaborative interrogation to facilitate acquisition of

factual information in cooperative learning settings: One good strategy deserves another.

Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8, 465-478. doi: 10.1002/acp.2350080505

Kang, S. H. (2016). Spaced repetition promotes efficient and effective learning policy

implications for instruction. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3,

12-19. doi: 10.1177/2372732215624708.

Kang, S. H., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger III, H. L. (2007). Test format and corrective

feedback modify the effect of testing on long-term retention. European Journal of

Cognitive Psychology, 19, 528-558. doi: 10.1080/09541440601056620

Karpicke, J. D., Blunt, J. R., Smith, M. A., & Karpicke, S. S. (2014). Retrieval-based learning:

The need for guided retrieval in elementary school children. Journal of Applied Research

in Memory and Cognition, 3, 198-206. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.07.008

Kirschner, P. A., & van Merrinboer, J. J. (2013). Do learners really know best? Urban legends

in education. Educational Psychologist, 48, 169-183. doi:

10.1080/00461520.2013.804395

Lockhart, R. S., & Craik, F. I. M. (1990). Levels of processing: A retrospective commentary on a

framework for memory research. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 44, 87112. doi:

10.1037/h0084237

Logan, J. M., Castel, A. D., Haber, S., & Viehman, E. J. (2012). Metacognition and the spacing

effect: the role of repetition, feedback, and instruction on judgments of learning for

massed and spaced rehearsal. Metacognition and Learning, 7, 175-195. doi:

10.1007/s11409-012-9090-3
Madan, C. R., Glaholt, M. G., & Caplan, J. B. (2010). The influence of item properties on

association-memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 46-63.

doi:10.1016/j.jml.2010.03.001

Madan, C. R., & Singhal, A. (2012). Using actions to enhance memory: Effects of enactment,

gestures, and exercise on human memory. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 507.

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00507

Moscovitch, & H. L. Roediger (Eds.), Perspectives on human memory and cognitive aging:

Essays in honour of Fergus I. M. Craik (pp. 28-47). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Paivio, A., & Csapo, K. (1969). Concrete image and verbal memory codes. Journal of

Experimental Psychology, 80, 279-285. doi: 10.1037/h0027273

Paivio, A., & Csapo, K. (1973). Picture superiority in free recall: Imagery or dual coding?

Cognitive Psychology, 5, 176-206. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(73)90032-7

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 (NCER 2007-

2004). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education

Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ncer.ed.gov.

Pomerance, L., Greenberg, J., and Walsh, K. (January 2016). Learning About Learning: What

Every New Teacher Needs to Know. Washington, D.C.: National Council on Teacher

Quality. Retrieved from

http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/Learning_About_Learning_Report.
Pressley, M., McDaniel, M. A., Turnure, J. E., Wood, E., & Ahmad, M. (1987). Generation and

precision of elaboration: Effects on intentional and incidental learning. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13(2), 291-300. doi:

10.1037/0278-7393.13.2.291

Roediger, H. L. (2013). Applying cognitive psychology to education: Translational educational

science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14,1-3. doi:

10.1177/1529100612454415

Roediger, H. L., & Gallo, D. A. (2002). Levels of processing: Some unanswered questions. In M.

Naveh-Benjamin, M. Moscovitch, & H. L. Roediger (Eds.), Perspectives on human

memory and cognitive aging: Essays in honour of Fergus I. M. Craik (pp. 28-47).

Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests

improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17, 249-255. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-

9280.2006.01693.x

Smith, B. L., Holliday, W. G., & Austin, H. W. (2010). Students' comprehension of science

textbooks using a question-based reading strategy. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 47, 363-379. doi: 10.1002/tea.20378

Smith, M. A., Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2013). Covert retrieval practice benefits

retention as much as overt retrieval practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology:

Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1712-1725. doi: 10.1037/a0033569

Storm, B. C., Bjork, R. A., & Storm, J. C. (2010). Optimizing retrieval as a learning event: When

and why expanding retrieval practice enhances long-term retention. Memory &

Cognition, 38, 244-253. doi: 10.3758/MC.38.2.244

 Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2012). Learning styles: Where's the evidence? Medical Education, 46,

34-35. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04273.x

Rohrer, D., & Taylor, K. (2007). The shuffling of mathematics practice problems improves

learning. Instructional Science, 35, 481-498. doi: 10.1007/s11251-007-9015-8

Thomas, P. L., & Goering, C. Z. (2016, March). Review of learning about learning: What every

new teacher needs to know. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-

teacher-education

Wammes, J. D., Meade, M. E., & Fernandes, M. A. (2015). The drawing effect: Evidence for

reliable and robust memory benefits in free recall. Quarterly Journal of Experimental

Psychology, 69, 1752-1776. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2015.1094494

Weinstein, Y., Gilmore, A. W., Szpunar, K. K., & McDermott, K. B. (2014). The role of test

expectancy in the build-up of proactive interference in long-term memory. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 1039-1048. doi:

10.1037/a0036164

Weinstein, Y., Nunes, L. D., & Karpicke, J. D. (2016). On the placement of practice questions

during study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22, 72-84. doi:

10.1037/xap0000071

The author has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate.