teaching the latest research papers

• Tutorial Review
• Open access
• Published: 24 January 2018

Teaching the science of learning

• Yana Weinstein   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5144-968X 1 ,
• Christopher R. Madan 2 , 3 &
• Megan A. Sumeracki 4  

Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications volume  3 , Article number:  2 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

233k Accesses

86 Citations

768 Altmetric

Metrics details

The science of learning has made a considerable contribution to our understanding of effective teaching and learning strategies. However, few instructors outside of the field are privy to this research. In this tutorial review, we focus on six specific cognitive strategies that have received robust support from decades of research: spaced practice, interleaving, retrieval practice, elaboration, concrete examples, and dual coding. We describe the basic research behind each strategy and relevant applied research, present examples of existing and suggested implementation, and make recommendations for further research that would broaden the reach of these strategies.

Significance

Education does not currently adhere to the medical model of evidence-based practice (Roediger, 2013 ). However, over the past few decades, our field has made significant advances in applying cognitive processes to education. From this work, specific recommendations can be made for students to maximize their learning efficiency (Dunlosky, Rawson, Marsh, Nathan, & Willingham, 2013 ; Roediger, Finn, & Weinstein, 2012 ). In particular, a review published 10 years ago identified a limited number of study techniques that have received solid evidence from multiple replications testing their effectiveness in and out of the classroom (Pashler et al., 2007 ). A recent textbook analysis (Pomerance, Greenberg, & Walsh, 2016 ) took the six key learning strategies from this report by Pashler and colleagues, and found that very few teacher-training textbooks cover any of these six principles – and none cover them all, suggesting that these strategies are not systematically making their way into the classroom. This is the case in spite of multiple recent academic (e.g., Dunlosky et al., 2013 ) and general audience (e.g., Dunlosky, 2013 ) publications about these strategies. In this tutorial review, we present the basic science behind each of these six key principles, along with more recent research on their effectiveness in live classrooms, and suggest ideas for pedagogical implementation. The target audience of this review is (a) educators who might be interested in integrating the strategies into their teaching practice, (b) science of learning researchers who are looking for open questions to help determine future research priorities, and (c) researchers in other subfields who are interested in the ways that principles from cognitive psychology have been applied to education.

While the typical teacher may not be exposed to this research during teacher training, a small cohort of teachers intensely interested in cognitive psychology has recently emerged. These teachers are mainly based in the UK, and, anecdotally (e.g., Dennis (2016), personal communication), appear to have taken an interest in the science of learning after reading Make it Stick (Brown, Roediger, & McDaniel, 2014 ; see Clark ( 2016 ) for an enthusiastic review of this book on a teacher’s blog, and “Learning Scientists” ( 2016c ) for a collection). In addition, a grassroots teacher movement has led to the creation of “researchED” – a series of conferences on evidence-based education (researchED, 2013 ). The teachers who form part of this network frequently discuss cognitive psychology techniques and their applications to education on social media (mainly Twitter; e.g., Fordham, 2016 ; Penfound, 2016 ) and on their blogs, such as Evidence Into Practice ( https://evidenceintopractice.wordpress.com/ ), My Learning Journey ( http://reflectionsofmyteaching.blogspot.com/ ), and The Effortful Educator ( https://theeffortfuleducator.com/ ). In general, the teachers who write about these issues pay careful attention to the relevant literature, often citing some of the work described in this review.

These informal writings, while allowing teachers to explore their approach to teaching practice (Luehmann, 2008 ), give us a unique window into the application of the science of learning to the classroom. By examining these blogs, we can not only observe how basic cognitive research is being applied in the classroom by teachers who are reading it, but also how it is being misapplied, and what questions teachers may be posing that have gone unaddressed in the scientific literature. Throughout this review, we illustrate each strategy with examples of how it can be implemented (see Table  1 and Figs.  1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 and 7 ), as well as with relevant teacher blog posts that reflect on its application, and draw upon this work to pin-point fruitful avenues for further basic and applied research.

Spaced practice schedule for one week. This schedule is designed to represent a typical timetable of a high-school student. The schedule includes four one-hour study sessions, one longer study session on the weekend, and one rest day. Notice that each subject is studied one day after it is covered in school, to create spacing between classes and study sessions. Copyright note: this image was produced by the authors

a Blocked practice and interleaved practice with fraction problems. In the blocked version, students answer four multiplication problems consecutively. In the interleaved version, students answer a multiplication problem followed by a division problem and then an addition problem, before returning to multiplication. For an experiment with a similar setup, see Patel et al. ( 2016 ). Copyright note: this image was produced by the authors. b Illustration of interleaving and spacing. Each color represents a different homework topic. Interleaving involves alternating between topics, rather than blocking. Spacing involves distributing practice over time, rather than massing. Interleaving inherently involves spacing as other tasks naturally “fill” the spaces between interleaved sessions. Copyright note: this image was produced by the authors, adapted from Rohrer ( 2012 )

Concept map illustrating the process and resulting benefits of retrieval practice. Retrieval practice involves the process of withdrawing learned information from long-term memory into working memory, which requires effort. This produces direct benefits via the consolidation of learned information, making it easier to remember later and causing improvements in memory, transfer, and inferences. Retrieval practice also produces indirect benefits of feedback to students and teachers, which in turn can lead to more effective study and teaching practices, with a focus on information that was not accurately retrieved. Copyright note: this figure originally appeared in a blog post by the first and third authors ( http://www.learningscientists.org/blog/2016/4/1-1 )

Illustration of “how” and “why” questions (i.e., elaborative interrogation questions) students might ask while studying the physics of flight. To help figure out how physics explains flight, students might ask themselves the following questions: “How does a plane take off?”; “Why does a plane need an engine?”; “How does the upward force (lift) work?”; “Why do the wings have a curved upper surface and a flat lower surface?”; and “Why is there a downwash behind the wings?”. Copyright note: the image of the plane was downloaded from Pixabay.com and is free to use, modify, and share

Three examples of physics problems that would be categorized differently by novices and experts. The problems in ( a ) and ( c ) look similar on the surface, so novices would group them together into one category. Experts, however, will recognize that the problems in ( b ) and ( c ) both relate to the principle of energy conservation, and so will group those two problems into one category instead. Copyright note: the figure was produced by the authors, based on figures in Chi et al. ( 1981 )

Example of how to enhance learning through use of a visual example. Students might view this visual representation of neural communications with the words provided, or they could draw a similar visual representation themselves. Copyright note: this figure was produced by the authors

Example of word properties associated with visual, verbal, and motor coding for the word “SPOON”. A word can evoke multiple types of representation (“codes” in dual coding theory). Viewing a word will automatically evoke verbal representations related to its component letters and phonemes. Words representing objects (i.e., concrete nouns) will also evoke visual representations, including information about similar objects, component parts of the object, and information about where the object is typically found. In some cases, additional codes can also be evoked, such as motor-related properties of the represented object, where contextual information related to the object’s functional intention and manipulation action may also be processed automatically when reading the word. Copyright note: this figure was produced by the authors and is based on Aylwin ( 1990 ; Fig.  2 ) and Madan and Singhal ( 2012a , Fig.  3 )

Spaced practice

The benefits of spaced (or distributed) practice to learning are arguably one of the strongest contributions that cognitive psychology has made to education (Kang, 2016 ). The effect is simple: the same amount of repeated studying of the same information spaced out over time will lead to greater retention of that information in the long run, compared with repeated studying of the same information for the same amount of time in one study session. The benefits of distributed practice were first empirically demonstrated in the 19 th century. As part of his extensive investigation into his own memory, Ebbinghaus ( 1885/1913 ) found that when he spaced out repetitions across 3 days, he could almost halve the number of repetitions necessary to relearn a series of 12 syllables in one day (Chapter 8). He thus concluded that “a suitable distribution of [repetitions] over a space of time is decidedly more advantageous than the massing of them at a single time” (Section 34). For those who want to read more about Ebbinghaus’s contribution to memory research, Roediger ( 1985 ) provides an excellent summary.

Since then, hundreds of studies have examined spacing effects both in the laboratory and in the classroom (Kang, 2016 ). Spaced practice appears to be particularly useful at large retention intervals: in the meta-analysis by Cepeda, Pashler, Vul, Wixted, and Rohrer ( 2006 ), all studies with a retention interval longer than a month showed a clear benefit of distributed practice. The “new theory of disuse” (Bjork & Bjork, 1992 ) provides a helpful mechanistic explanation for the benefits of spacing to learning. This theory posits that memories have both retrieval strength and storage strength. Whereas retrieval strength is thought to measure the ease with which a memory can be recalled at a given moment, storage strength (which cannot be measured directly) represents the extent to which a memory is truly embedded in the mind. When studying is taking place, both retrieval strength and storage strength receive a boost. However, the extent to which storage strength is boosted depends upon retrieval strength, and the relationship is negative: the greater the current retrieval strength, the smaller the gains in storage strength. Thus, the information learned through “cramming” will be rapidly forgotten due to high retrieval strength and low storage strength (Bjork & Bjork, 2011 ), whereas spacing out learning increases storage strength by allowing retrieval strength to wane before restudy.

Teachers can introduce spacing to their students in two broad ways. One involves creating opportunities to revisit information throughout the semester, or even in future semesters. This does involve some up-front planning, and can be difficult to achieve, given time constraints and the need to cover a set curriculum. However, spacing can be achieved with no great costs if teachers set aside a few minutes per class to review information from previous lessons. The second method involves putting the onus to space on the students themselves. Of course, this would work best with older students – high school and above. Because spacing requires advance planning, it is crucial that the teacher helps students plan their studying. For example, teachers could suggest that students schedule study sessions on days that alternate with the days on which a particular class meets (e.g., schedule review sessions for Tuesday and Thursday when the class meets Monday and Wednesday; see Fig.  1 for a more complete weekly spaced practice schedule). It important to note that the spacing effect refers to information that is repeated multiple times, rather than the idea of studying different material in one long session versus spaced out in small study sessions over time. However, for teachers and particularly for students planning a study schedule, the subtle difference between the two situations (spacing out restudy opportunities, versus spacing out studying of different information over time) may be lost. Future research should address the effects of spacing out studying of different information over time, whether the same considerations apply in this situation as compared to spacing out restudy opportunities, and how important it is for teachers and students to understand the difference between these two types of spaced practice.

It is important to note that students may feel less confident when they space their learning (Bjork, 1999 ) than when they cram. This is because spaced learning is harder – but it is this “desirable difficulty” that helps learning in the long term (Bjork, 1994 ). Students tend to cram for exams rather than space out their learning. One explanation for this is that cramming does “work”, if the goal is only to pass an exam. In order to change students’ minds about how they schedule their studying, it might be important to emphasize the value of retaining information beyond a final exam in one course.

Ideas for how to apply spaced practice in teaching have appeared in numerous teacher blogs (e.g., Fawcett, 2013 ; Kraft, 2015 ; Picciotto, 2009 ). In England in particular, as of 2013, high-school students need to be able to remember content from up to 3 years back on cumulative exams (General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) and A-level exams; see CIFE, 2012 ). A-levels in particular determine what subject students study in university and which programs they are accepted into, and thus shape the path of their academic career. A common approach for dealing with these exams has been to include a “revision” (i.e., studying or cramming) period of a few weeks leading up to the high-stakes cumulative exams. Now, teachers who follow cognitive psychology are advocating a shift of priorities to spacing learning over time across the 3 years, rather than teaching a topic once and then intensely reviewing it weeks before the exam (Cox, 2016a ; Wood, 2017 ). For example, some teachers have suggested using homework assignments as an opportunity for spaced practice by giving students homework on previous topics (Rose, 2014 ). However, questions remain, such as whether spaced practice can ever be effective enough to completely alleviate the need or utility of a cramming period (Cox, 2016b ), and how one can possibly figure out the optimal lag for spacing (Benney, 2016 ; Firth, 2016 ).

There has been considerable research on the question of optimal lag, and much of it is quite complex; two sessions neither too close together (i.e., cramming) nor too far apart are ideal for retention. In a large-scale study, Cepeda, Vul, Rohrer, Wixted, and Pashler ( 2008 ) examined the effects of the gap between study sessions and the interval between study and test across long periods, and found that the optimal gap between study sessions was contingent on the retention interval. Thus, it is not clear how teachers can apply the complex findings on lag to their own classrooms.

A useful avenue of research would be to simplify the research paradigms that are used to study optimal lag, with the goal of creating a flexible, spaced-practice framework that teachers could apply and tailor to their own teaching needs. For example, an Excel macro spreadsheet was recently produced to help teachers plan for lagged lessons (Weinstein-Jones & Weinstein, 2017 ; see Weinstein & Weinstein-Jones ( 2017 ) for a description of the algorithm used in the spreadsheet), and has been used by teachers to plan their lessons (Penfound, 2017 ). However, one teacher who found this tool helpful also wondered whether the more sophisticated plan was any better than his own method of manually selecting poorly understood material from previous classes for later review (Lovell, 2017 ). This direction is being actively explored within personalized online learning environments (Kornell & Finn, 2016 ; Lindsey, Shroyer, Pashler, & Mozer, 2014 ), but teachers in physical classrooms might need less technologically-driven solutions to teach cohorts of students.

It seems teachers would greatly appreciate a set of guidelines for how to implement spacing in the curriculum in the most effective, but also the most efficient manner. While the cognitive field has made great advances in terms of understanding the mechanisms behind spacing, what teachers need more of are concrete evidence-based tools and guidelines for direct implementation in the classroom. These could include more sophisticated and experimentally tested versions of the software described above (Weinstein-Jones & Weinstein, 2017 ), or adaptable templates of spaced curricula. Moreover, researchers need to evaluate the effectiveness of these tools in a real classroom environment, over a semester or academic year, in order to give pedagogically relevant evidence-based recommendations to teachers.

Interleaving

Another scheduling technique that has been shown to increase learning is interleaving. Interleaving occurs when different ideas or problem types are tackled in a sequence, as opposed to the more common method of attempting multiple versions of the same problem in a given study session (known as blocking). Interleaving as a principle can be applied in many different ways. One such way involves interleaving different types of problems during learning, which is particularly applicable to subjects such as math and physics (see Fig.  2 a for an example with fractions, based on a study by Patel, Liu, & Koedinger, 2016 ). For example, in a study with college students, Rohrer and Taylor ( 2007 ) found that shuffling math problems that involved calculating the volume of different shapes resulted in better test performance 1 week later than when students answered multiple problems about the same type of shape in a row. This pattern of results has also been replicated with younger students, for example 7 th grade students learning to solve graph and slope problems (Rohrer, Dedrick, & Stershic, 2015 ). The proposed explanation for the benefit of interleaving is that switching between different problem types allows students to acquire the ability to choose the right method for solving different types of problems rather than learning only the method itself, and not when to apply it.

Do the benefits of interleaving extend beyond problem solving? The answer appears to be yes. Interleaving can be helpful in other situations that require discrimination, such as inductive learning. Kornell and Bjork ( 2008 ) examined the effects of interleaving in a task that might be pertinent to a student of the history of art: the ability to match paintings to their respective painters. Students who studied different painters’ paintings interleaved at study were more successful on a later identification test than were participants who studied the paintings blocked by painter. Birnbaum, Kornell, Bjork, and Bjork ( 2013 ) proposed the discriminative-contrast hypothesis to explain that interleaving enhances learning by allowing the comparison between exemplars of different categories. They found support for this hypothesis in a set of experiments with bird categorization: participants benefited from interleaving and also from spacing, but not when the spacing interrupted side-by-side comparisons of birds from different categories.

Another type of interleaving involves the interleaving of study and test opportunities. This type of interleaving has been applied, once again, to problem solving, whereby students alternate between attempting a problem and viewing a worked example (Trafton & Reiser, 1993 ); this pattern appears to be superior to answering a string of problems in a row, at least with respect to the amount of time it takes to achieve mastery of a procedure (Corbett, Reed, Hoffmann, MacLaren, & Wagner, 2010 ). The benefits of interleaving study and test opportunities – rather than blocking study followed by attempting to answer problems or questions – might arise due to a process known as “test-potentiated learning”. That is, a study opportunity that immediately follows a retrieval attempt may be more fruitful than when that same studying was not preceded by retrieval (Arnold & McDermott, 2013 ).

For problem-based subjects, the interleaving technique is straightforward: simply mix questions on homework and quizzes with previous materials (which takes care of spacing as well); for languages, mix vocabulary themes rather than blocking by theme (Thomson & Mehring, 2016 ). But interleaving as an educational strategy ought to be presented to teachers with some caveats. Research has focused on interleaving material that is somewhat related (e.g., solving different mathematical equations, Rohrer et al., 2015 ), whereas students sometimes ask whether they should interleave material from different subjects – a practice that has not received empirical support (Hausman & Kornell, 2014 ). When advising students how to study independently, teachers should thus proceed with caution. Since it is easy for younger students to confuse this type of unhelpful interleaving with the more helpful interleaving of related information, it may be best for teachers of younger grades to create opportunities for interleaving in homework and quiz assignments rather than putting the onus on the students themselves to make use of the technique. Technology can be very helpful here, with apps such as Quizlet, Memrise, Anki, Synap, Quiz Champ, and many others (see also “Learning Scientists”, 2017 ) that not only allow instructor-created quizzes to be taken by students, but also provide built-in interleaving algorithms so that the burden does not fall on the teacher or the student to carefully plan which items are interleaved when.

An important point to consider is that in educational practice, the distinction between spacing and interleaving can be difficult to delineate. The gap between the scientific and classroom definitions of interleaving is demonstrated by teachers’ own writings about this technique. When they write about interleaving, teachers often extend the term to connote a curriculum that involves returning to topics multiple times throughout the year (e.g., Kirby, 2014 ; see “Learning Scientists” ( 2016a ) for a collection of similar blog posts by several other teachers). The “interleaving” of topics throughout the curriculum produces an effect that is more akin to what cognitive psychologists call “spacing” (see Fig.  2 b for a visual representation of the difference between interleaving and spacing). However, cognitive psychologists have not examined the effects of structuring the curriculum in this way, and open questions remain: does repeatedly circling back to previous topics throughout the semester interrupt the learning of new information? What are some effective techniques for interleaving old and new information within one class? And how does one determine the balance between old and new information?

Retrieval practice

While tests are most often used in educational settings for assessment, a lesser-known benefit of tests is that they actually improve memory of the tested information. If we think of our memories as libraries of information, then it may seem surprising that retrieval (which happens when we take a test) improves memory; however, we know from a century of research that retrieving knowledge actually strengthens it (see Karpicke, Lehman, & Aue, 2014 ). Testing was shown to strengthen memory as early as 100 years ago (Gates, 1917 ), and there has been a surge of research in the last decade on the mnemonic benefits of testing, or retrieval practice . Most of the research on the effectiveness of retrieval practice has been done with college students (see Roediger & Karpicke, 2006 ; Roediger, Putnam, & Smith, 2011 ), but retrieval-based learning has been shown to be effective at producing learning for a wide range of ages, including preschoolers (Fritz, Morris, Nolan, & Singleton, 2007 ), elementary-aged children (e.g., Karpicke, Blunt, & Smith, 2016 ; Karpicke, Blunt, Smith, & Karpicke, 2014 ; Lipko-Speed, Dunlosky, & Rawson, 2014 ; Marsh, Fazio, & Goswick, 2012 ; Ritchie, Della Sala, & McIntosh, 2013 ), middle-school students (e.g., McDaniel, Thomas, Agarwal, McDermott, & Roediger, 2013 ; McDermott, Agarwal, D’Antonio, Roediger, & McDaniel, 2014 ), and high-school students (e.g., McDermott et al., 2014 ). In addition, the effectiveness of retrieval-based learning has been extended beyond simple testing to other activities in which retrieval practice can be integrated, such as concept mapping (Blunt & Karpicke, 2014 ; Karpicke, Blunt, et al., 2014 ; Ritchie et al., 2013 ).

A debate is currently ongoing as to the effectiveness of retrieval practice for more complex materials (Karpicke & Aue, 2015 ; Roelle & Berthold, 2017 ; Van Gog & Sweller, 2015 ). Practicing retrieval has been shown to improve the application of knowledge to new situations (e.g., Butler, 2010 ; Dirkx, Kester, & Kirschner, 2014 ); McDaniel et al., 2013 ; Smith, Blunt, Whiffen, & Karpicke, 2016 ); but see Tran, Rohrer, and Pashler ( 2015 ) and Wooldridge, Bugg, McDaniel, and Liu ( 2014 ), for retrieval practice studies that showed limited or no increased transfer compared to restudy. Retrieval practice effects on higher-order learning may be more sensitive than fact learning to encoding factors, such as the way material is presented during study (Eglington & Kang, 2016 ). In addition, retrieval practice may be more beneficial for higher-order learning if it includes more scaffolding (Fiechter & Benjamin, 2017 ; but see Smith, Blunt, et al., 2016 ) and targeted practice with application questions (Son & Rivas, 2016 ).

How does retrieval practice help memory? Figure  3 illustrates both the direct and indirect benefits of retrieval practice identified by the literature. The act of retrieval itself is thought to strengthen memory (Karpicke, Blunt, et al., 2014 ; Roediger & Karpicke, 2006 ; Smith, Roediger, & Karpicke, 2013 ). For example, Smith et al. ( 2013 ) showed that if students brought information to mind without actually producing it (covert retrieval), they remembered the information just as well as if they overtly produced the retrieved information (overt retrieval). Importantly, both overt and covert retrieval practice improved memory over control groups without retrieval practice, even when feedback was not provided. The fact that bringing information to mind in the absence of feedback or restudy opportunities improves memory leads researchers to conclude that it is the act of retrieval – thinking back to bring information to mind – that improves memory of that information.

The benefit of retrieval practice depends to a certain extent on successful retrieval (see Karpicke, Lehman, et al., 2014 ). For example, in Experiment 4 of Smith et al. ( 2013 ), students successfully retrieved 72% of the information during retrieval practice. Of course, retrieving 72% of the information was compared to a restudy control group, during which students were re-exposed to 100% of the information, creating a bias in favor of the restudy condition. Yet retrieval led to superior memory later compared to the restudy control. However, if retrieval success is extremely low, then it is unlikely to improve memory (e.g., Karpicke, Blunt, et al., 2014 ), particularly in the absence of feedback. On the other hand, if retrieval-based learning situations are constructed in such a way that ensures high levels of success, the act of bringing the information to mind may be undermined, thus making it less beneficial. For example, if a student reads a sentence and then immediately covers the sentence and recites it out loud, they are likely not retrieving the information but rather just keeping the information in their working memory long enough to recite it again (see Smith, Blunt, et al., 2016 for a discussion of this point). Thus, it is important to balance success of retrieval with overall difficulty in retrieving the information (Smith & Karpicke, 2014 ; Weinstein, Nunes, & Karpicke, 2016 ). If initial retrieval success is low, then feedback can help improve the overall benefit of practicing retrieval (Kang, McDermott, & Roediger, 2007 ; Smith & Karpicke, 2014 ). Kornell, Klein, and Rawson ( 2015 ), however, found that it was the retrieval attempt and not the correct production of information that produced the retrieval practice benefit – as long as the correct answer was provided after an unsuccessful attempt, the benefit was the same as for a successful retrieval attempt in this set of studies. From a practical perspective, it would be helpful for teachers to know when retrieval attempts in the absence of success are helpful, and when they are not. There may also be additional reasons beyond retrieval benefits that would push teachers towards retrieval practice activities that produce some success amongst students; for example, teachers may hesitate to give students retrieval practice exercises that are too difficult, as this may negatively affect self-efficacy and confidence.

In addition to the fact that bringing information to mind directly improves memory for that information, engaging in retrieval practice can produce indirect benefits as well (see Roediger et al., 2011 ). For example, research by Weinstein, Gilmore, Szpunar, and McDermott ( 2014 ) demonstrated that when students expected to be tested, the increased test expectancy led to better-quality encoding of new information. Frequent testing can also serve to decrease mind-wandering – that is, thoughts that are unrelated to the material that students are supposed to be studying (Szpunar, Khan, & Schacter, 2013 ).

Practicing retrieval is a powerful way to improve meaningful learning of information, and it is relatively easy to implement in the classroom. For example, requiring students to practice retrieval can be as simple as asking students to put their class materials away and try to write out everything they know about a topic. Retrieval-based learning strategies are also flexible. Instructors can give students practice tests (e.g., short-answer or multiple-choice, see Smith & Karpicke, 2014 ), provide open-ended prompts for the students to recall information (e.g., Smith, Blunt, et al., 2016 ) or ask their students to create concept maps from memory (e.g., Blunt & Karpicke, 2014 ). In one study, Weinstein et al. ( 2016 ) looked at the effectiveness of inserting simple short-answer questions into online learning modules to see whether they improved student performance. Weinstein and colleagues also manipulated the placement of the questions. For some students, the questions were interspersed throughout the module, and for other students the questions were all presented at the end of the module. Initial success on the short-answer questions was higher when the questions were interspersed throughout the module. However, on a later test of learning from that module, the original placement of the questions in the module did not matter for performance. As with spaced practice, where the optimal gap between study sessions is contingent on the retention interval, the optimum difficulty and level of success during retrieval practice may also depend on the retention interval. Both groups of students who answered questions performed better on the delayed test compared to a control group without question opportunities during the module. Thus, the important thing is for instructors to provide opportunities for retrieval practice during learning. Based on previous research, any activity that promotes the successful retrieval of information should improve learning.

Retrieval practice has received a lot of attention in teacher blogs (see “Learning Scientists” ( 2016b ) for a collection). A common theme seems to be an emphasis on low-stakes (Young, 2016 ) and even no-stakes (Cox, 2015 ) testing, the goal of which is to increase learning rather than assess performance. In fact, one well-known charter school in the UK has an official homework policy grounded in retrieval practice: students are to test themselves on subject knowledge for 30 minutes every day in lieu of standard homework (Michaela Community School, 2014 ). The utility of homework, particularly for younger children, is often a hotly debated topic outside of academia (e.g., Shumaker, 2016 ; but see Jones ( 2016 ) for an opposing viewpoint and Cooper ( 1989 ) for the original research the blog posts were based on). Whereas some research shows clear links between homework and academic achievement (Valle et al., 2016 ), other researchers have questioned the effectiveness of homework (Dettmers, Trautwein, & Lüdtke, 2009 ). Perhaps amending homework to involve retrieval practice might make it more effective; this remains an open empirical question.

One final consideration is that of test anxiety. While retrieval practice can be very powerful at improving memory, some research shows that pressure during retrieval can undermine some of the learning benefit. For example, Hinze and Rapp ( 2014 ) manipulated pressure during quizzing to create high-pressure and low-pressure conditions. On the quizzes themselves, students performed equally well. However, those in the high-pressure condition did not perform as well on a criterion test later compared to the low-pressure group. Thus, test anxiety may reduce the learning benefit of retrieval practice. Eliminating all high-pressure tests is probably not possible, but instructors can provide a number of low-stakes retrieval opportunities for students to help increase learning. The use of low-stakes testing can serve to decrease test anxiety (Khanna, 2015 ), and has recently been shown to negate the detrimental impact of stress on learning (Smith, Floerke, & Thomas, 2016 ). This is a particularly important line of inquiry to pursue for future research, because many teachers who are not familiar with the effectiveness of retrieval practice may be put off by the implied pressure of “testing”, which evokes the much maligned high-stakes standardized tests (e.g., McHugh, 2013 ).

Elaboration

Elaboration involves connecting new information to pre-existing knowledge. Anderson ( 1983 , p.285) made the following claim about elaboration: “One of the most potent manipulations that can be performed in terms of increasing a subject’s memory for material is to have the subject elaborate on the to-be-remembered material.” Postman ( 1976 , p. 28) defined elaboration most parsimoniously as “additions to nominal input”, and Hirshman ( 2001 , p. 4369) provided an elaboration on this definition (pun intended!), defining elaboration as “A conscious, intentional process that associates to-be-remembered information with other information in memory.” However, in practice, elaboration could mean many different things. The common thread in all the definitions is that elaboration involves adding features to an existing memory.

One possible instantiation of elaboration is thinking about information on a deeper level. The levels (or “depth”) of processing framework, proposed by Craik and Lockhart ( 1972 ), predicts that information will be remembered better if it is processed more deeply in terms of meaning, rather than shallowly in terms of form. The leves of processing framework has, however, received a number of criticisms (Craik, 2002 ). One major problem with this framework is that it is difficult to measure “depth”. And if we are not able to actually measure depth, then the argument can become circular: is it that something was remembered better because it was studied more deeply, or do we conclude that it must have been studied more deeply because it is remembered better? (See Lockhart & Craik, 1990 , for further discussion of this issue).

Another mechanism by which elaboration can confer a benefit to learning is via improvement in organization (Bellezza, Cheesman, & Reddy, 1977 ; Mandler, 1979 ). By this view, elaboration involves making information more integrated and organized with existing knowledge structures. By connecting and integrating the to-be-learned information with other concepts in memory, students can increase the extent to which the ideas are organized in their minds, and this increased organization presumably facilitates the reconstruction of the past at the time of retrieval.

Elaboration is such a broad term and can include so many different techniques that it is hard to claim that elaboration will always help learning. There is, however, a specific technique under the umbrella of elaboration for which there is relatively strong evidence in terms of effectiveness (Dunlosky et al., 2013 ; Pashler et al., 2007 ). This technique is called elaborative interrogation, and involves students questioning the materials that they are studying (Pressley, McDaniel, Turnure, Wood, & Ahmad, 1987 ). More specifically, students using this technique would ask “how” and “why” questions about the concepts they are studying (see Fig.  4 for an example on the physics of flight). Then, crucially, students would try to answer these questions – either from their materials or, eventually, from memory (McDaniel & Donnelly, 1996 ). The process of figuring out the answer to the questions – with some amount of uncertainty (Overoye & Storm, 2015 ) – can help learning. When using this technique, however, it is important that students check their answers with their materials or with the teacher; when the content generated through elaborative interrogation is poor, it can actually hurt learning (Clinton, Alibali, & Nathan, 2016 ).

Students can also be encouraged to self-explain concepts to themselves while learning (Chi, De Leeuw, Chiu, & LaVancher, 1994 ). This might involve students simply saying out loud what steps they need to perform to solve an equation. Aleven and Koedinger ( 2002 ) conducted two classroom studies in which students were either prompted by a “cognitive tutor” to provide self-explanations during a problem-solving task or not, and found that the self-explanations led to improved performance. According to the authors, this approach could scale well to real classrooms. If possible and relevant, students could even perform actions alongside their self-explanations (Cohen, 1981 ; see also the enactment effect, Hainselin, Picard, Manolli, Vankerkore-Candas, & Bourdin, 2017 ). Instructors can scaffold students in these types of activities by providing self-explanation prompts throughout to-be-learned material (O’Neil et al., 2014 ). Ultimately, the greatest potential benefit of accurate self-explanation or elaboration is that the student will be able to transfer their knowledge to a new situation (Rittle-Johnson, 2006 ).

The technical term “elaborative interrogation” has not made it into the vernacular of educational bloggers (a search on https://educationechochamberuncut.wordpress.com , which consolidates over 3,000 UK-based teacher blogs, yielded zero results for that term). However, a few teachers have blogged about elaboration more generally (e.g., Hobbiss, 2016 ) and deep questioning specifically (e.g., Class Teaching, 2013 ), just without using the specific terminology. This strategy in particular may benefit from a more open dialog between researchers and teachers to facilitate the use of elaborative interrogation in the classroom and to address possible barriers to implementation. In terms of advancing the scientific understanding of elaborative interrogation in a classroom setting, it would be informative to conduct a larger-scale intervention to see whether having students elaborate during reading actually helps their understanding. It would also be useful to know whether the students really need to generate their own elaborative interrogation (“how” and “why”) questions, versus answering questions provided by others. How long should students persist to find the answers? When is the right time to have students engage in this task, given the levels of expertise required to do it well (Clinton et al., 2016 )? Without knowing the answers to these questions, it may be too early for us to instruct teachers to use this technique in their classes. Finally, elaborative interrogation takes a long time. Is this time efficiently spent? Or, would it be better to have the students try to answer a few questions, pool their information as a class, and then move to practicing retrieval of the information?

Concrete examples

Providing supporting information can improve the learning of key ideas and concepts. Specifically, using concrete examples to supplement content that is more conceptual in nature can make the ideas easier to understand and remember. Concrete examples can provide several advantages to the learning process: (a) they can concisely convey information, (b) they can provide students with more concrete information that is easier to remember, and (c) they can take advantage of the superior memorability of pictures relative to words (see “Dual Coding”).

Words that are more concrete are both recognized and recalled better than abstract words (Gorman, 1961 ; e.g., “button” and “bound,” respectively). Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that information that is more concrete and imageable enhances the learning of associations, even with abstract content (Caplan & Madan, 2016 ; Madan, Glaholt, & Caplan, 2010 ; Paivio, 1971 ). Following from this, providing concrete examples during instruction should improve retention of related abstract concepts, rather than the concrete examples alone being remembered better. Concrete examples can be useful both during instruction and during practice problems. Having students actively explain how two examples are similar and encouraging them to extract the underlying structure on their own can also help with transfer. In a laboratory study, Berry ( 1983 ) demonstrated that students performed well when given concrete practice problems, regardless of the use of verbalization (akin to elaborative interrogation), but that verbalization helped students transfer understanding from concrete to abstract problems. One particularly important area of future research is determining how students can best make the link between concrete examples and abstract ideas.

Since abstract concepts are harder to grasp than concrete information (Paivio, Walsh, & Bons, 1994 ), it follows that teachers ought to illustrate abstract ideas with concrete examples. However, care must be taken when selecting the examples. LeFevre and Dixon ( 1986 ) provided students with both concrete examples and abstract instructions and found that when these were inconsistent, students followed the concrete examples rather than the abstract instructions, potentially constraining the application of the abstract concept being taught. Lew, Fukawa-Connelly, Mejí-Ramos, and Weber ( 2016 ) used an interview approach to examine why students may have difficulty understanding a lecture. Responses indicated that some issues were related to understanding the overarching topic rather than the component parts, and to the use of informal colloquialisms that did not clearly follow from the material being taught. Both of these issues could have potentially been addressed through the inclusion of a greater number of relevant concrete examples.

One concern with using concrete examples is that students might only remember the examples – especially if they are particularly memorable, such as fun or gimmicky examples – and will not be able to transfer their understanding from one example to another, or more broadly to the abstract concept. However, there does not seem to be any evidence that fun relevant examples actually hurt learning by harming memory for important information. Instead, fun examples and jokes tend to be more memorable, but this boost in memory for the joke does not seem to come at a cost to memory for the underlying concept (Baldassari & Kelley, 2012 ). However, two important caveats need to be highlighted. First, to the extent that the more memorable content is not relevant to the concepts of interest, learning of the target information can be compromised (Harp & Mayer, 1998 ). Thus, care must be taken to ensure that all examples and gimmicks are, in fact, related to the core concepts that the students need to acquire, and do not contain irrelevant perceptual features (Kaminski & Sloutsky, 2013 ).

The second issue is that novices often notice and remember the surface details of an example rather than the underlying structure. Experts, on the other hand, can extract the underlying structure from examples that have divergent surface features (Chi, Feltovich, & Glaser, 1981 ; see Fig.  5 for an example from physics). Gick and Holyoak ( 1983 ) tried to get students to apply a rule from one problem to another problem that appeared different on the surface, but was structurally similar. They found that providing multiple examples helped with this transfer process compared to only using one example – especially when the examples provided had different surface details. More work is also needed to determine how many examples are sufficient for generalization to occur (and this, of course, will vary with contextual factors and individual differences). Further research on the continuum between concrete/specific examples and more abstract concepts would also be informative. That is, if an example is not concrete enough, it may be too difficult to understand. On the other hand, if the example is too concrete, that could be detrimental to generalization to the more abstract concept (although a diverse set of very concrete examples may be able to help with this). In fact, in a controversial article, Kaminski, Sloutsky, and Heckler ( 2008 ) claimed that abstract examples were more effective than concrete examples. Later rebuttals of this paper contested whether the abstract versus concrete distinction was clearly defined in the original study (see Reed, 2008 , for a collection of letters on the subject). This ideal point along the concrete-abstract continuum might also interact with development.

Finding teacher blog posts on concrete examples proved to be more difficult than for the other strategies in this review. One optimistic possibility is that teachers frequently use concrete examples in their teaching, and thus do not think of this as a specific contribution from cognitive psychology; the one blog post we were able to find that discussed concrete examples suggests that this might be the case (Boulton, 2016 ). The idea of “linking abstract concepts with concrete examples” is also covered in 25% of teacher-training textbooks used in the US, according to the report by Pomerance et al. ( 2016 ); this is the second most frequently covered of the six strategies, after “posing probing questions” (i.e., elaborative interrogation). A useful direction for future research would be to establish how teachers are using concrete examples in their practice, and whether we can make any suggestions for improvement based on research into the science of learning. For example, if two examples are better than one (Bauernschmidt, 2017 ), are additional examples also needed, or are there diminishing returns from providing more examples? And, how can teachers best ensure that concrete examples are consistent with prior knowledge (Reed, 2008 )?

Dual coding

Both the memory literature and folk psychology support the notion of visual examples being beneficial—the adage of “a picture is worth a thousand words” (traced back to an advertising slogan from the 1920s; Meider, 1990 ). Indeed, it is well-understood that more information can be conveyed through a simple illustration than through several paragraphs of text (e.g., Barker & Manji, 1989 ; Mayer & Gallini, 1990 ). Illustrations can be particularly helpful when the described concept involves several parts or steps and is intended for individuals with low prior knowledge (Eitel & Scheiter, 2015 ; Mayer & Gallini, 1990 ). Figure  6 provides a concrete example of this, illustrating how information can flow through neurons and synapses.

In addition to being able to convey information more succinctly, pictures are also more memorable than words (Paivio & Csapo, 1969 , 1973 ). In the memory literature, this is referred to as the picture superiority effect , and dual coding theory was developed in part to explain this effect. Dual coding follows from the notion of text being accompanied by complementary visual information to enhance learning. Paivio ( 1971 , 1986 ) proposed dual coding theory as a mechanistic account for the integration of multiple information “codes” to process information. In this theory, a code corresponds to a modal or otherwise distinct representation of a concept—e.g., “mental images for ‘book’ have visual, tactual, and other perceptual qualities similar to those evoked by the referent objects on which the images are based” (Clark & Paivio, 1991 , p. 152). Aylwin ( 1990 ) provides a clear example of how the word “dog” can evoke verbal, visual, and enactive representations (see Fig.  7 for a similar example for the word “SPOON”, based on Aylwin, 1990 (Fig.  2 ) and Madan & Singhal, 2012a (Fig.  3 )). Codes can also correspond to emotional properties (Clark & Paivio, 1991 ; Paivio, 2013 ). Clark and Paivio ( 1991 ) provide a thorough review of dual coding theory and its relation to education, while Paivio ( 2007 ) provides a comprehensive treatise on dual coding theory. Broadly, dual coding theory suggests that providing multiple representations of the same information enhances learning and memory, and that information that more readily evokes additional representations (through automatic imagery processes) receives a similar benefit.

Paivio and Csapo ( 1973 ) suggest that verbal and imaginal codes have independent and additive effects on memory recall. Using visuals to improve learning and memory has been particularly applied to vocabulary learning (Danan, 1992 ; Sadoski, 2005 ), but has also shown success in other domains such as in health care (Hartland, Biddle, & Fallacaro, 2008 ). To take advantage of dual coding, verbal information should be accompanied by a visual representation when possible. However, while the studies discussed all indicate that the use of multiple representations of information is favorable, it is important to acknowledge that each representation also increases cognitive load and can lead to over-saturation (Mayer & Moreno, 2003 ).

Given that pictures are generally remembered better than words, it is important to ensure that the pictures students are provided with are helpful and relevant to the content they are expected to learn. McNeill, Uttal, Jarvin, and Sternberg ( 2009 ) found that providing visual examples decreased conceptual errors. However, McNeill et al. also found that when students were given visually rich examples, they performed more poorly than students who were not given any visual example, suggesting that the visual details can at times become a distraction and hinder performance. Thus, it is important to consider that images used in teaching are clear and not ambiguous in their meaning (Schwartz, 2007 ).

Further broadening the scope of dual coding theory, Engelkamp and Zimmer ( 1984 ) suggest that motor movements, such as “turning the handle,” can provide an additional motor code that can improve memory, linking studies of motor actions (enactment) with dual coding theory (Clark & Paivio, 1991 ; Engelkamp & Cohen, 1991 ; Madan & Singhal, 2012c ). Indeed, enactment effects appear to primarily occur during learning, rather than during retrieval (Peterson & Mulligan, 2010 ). Along similar lines, Wammes, Meade, and Fernandes ( 2016 ) demonstrated that generating drawings can provide memory benefits beyond what could otherwise be explained by visual imagery, picture superiority, and other memory enhancing effects. Providing convergent evidence, even when overt motor actions are not critical in themselves, words representing functional objects have been shown to enhance later memory (Madan & Singhal, 2012b ; Montefinese, Ambrosini, Fairfield, & Mammarella, 2013 ). This indicates that motoric processes can improve memory similarly to visual imagery, similar to memory differences for concrete vs. abstract words. Further research suggests that automatic motor simulation for functional objects is likely responsible for this memory benefit (Madan, Chen, & Singhal, 2016 ).

When teachers combine visuals and words in their educational practice, however, they may not always be taking advantage of dual coding – at least, not in the optimal manner. For example, a recent discussion on Twitter centered around one teacher’s decision to have 7 th Grade students replace certain words in their science laboratory report with a picture of that word (e.g., the instructions read “using a syringe …” and a picture of a syringe replaced the word; Turner, 2016a ). Other teachers argued that this was not dual coding (Beaven, 2016 ; Williams, 2016 ), because there were no longer two different representations of the information. The first teacher maintained that dual coding was preserved, because this laboratory report with pictures was to be used alongside the original, fully verbal report (Turner, 2016b ). This particular implementation – having students replace individual words with pictures – has not been examined in the cognitive literature, presumably because no benefit would be expected. In any case, we need to be clearer about implementations for dual coding, and more research is needed to clarify how teachers can make use of the benefits conferred by multiple representations and picture superiority.

Critically, dual coding theory is distinct from the notion of “learning styles,” which describe the idea that individuals benefit from instruction that matches their modality preference. While this idea is pervasive and individuals often subjectively feel that they have a preference, evidence indicates that the learning styles theory is not supported by empirical findings (e.g., Kavale, Hirshoren, & Forness, 1998 ; Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, & Bjork, 2008 ; Rohrer & Pashler, 2012 ). That is, there is no evidence that instructing students in their preferred learning style leads to an overall improvement in learning (the “meshing” hypothesis). Moreover, learning styles have come to be described as a myth or urban legend within psychology (Coffield, Moseley, Hall, & Ecclestone, 2004 ; Hattie & Yates, 2014 ; Kirschner & van Merriënboer, 2013 ; Kirschner, 2017 ); skepticism about learning styles is a common stance amongst evidence-informed teachers (e.g., Saunders, 2016 ). Providing evidence against the notion of learning styles, Kraemer, Rosenberg, and Thompson-Schill ( 2009 ) found that individuals who scored as “verbalizers” and “visualizers” did not perform any better on experimental trials matching their preference. Instead, it has recently been shown that learning through one’s preferred learning style is associated with elevated subjective judgements of learning, but not objective performance (Knoll, Otani, Skeel, & Van Horn, 2017 ). In contrast to learning styles, dual coding is based on providing additional, complementary forms of information to enhance learning, rather than tailoring instruction to individuals’ preferences.

Genuine educational environments present many opportunities for combining the strategies outlined above. Spacing can be particularly potent for learning if it is combined with retrieval practice. The additive benefits of retrieval practice and spacing can be gained by engaging in retrieval practice multiple times (also known as distributed practice; see Cepeda et al., 2006 ). Interleaving naturally entails spacing if students interleave old and new material. Concrete examples can be both verbal and visual, making use of dual coding. In addition, the strategies of elaboration, concrete examples, and dual coding all work best when used as part of retrieval practice. For example, in the concept-mapping studies mentioned above (Blunt & Karpicke, 2014 ; Karpicke, Blunt, et al., 2014 ), creating concept maps while looking at course materials (e.g., a textbook) was not as effective for later memory as creating concept maps from memory. When practicing elaborative interrogation, students can start off answering the “how” and “why” questions they pose for themselves using class materials, and work their way up to answering them from memory. And when interleaving different problem types, students should be practicing answering them rather than just looking over worked examples.

But while these ideas for strategy combinations have empirical bases, it has not yet been established whether the benefits of the strategies to learning are additive, super-additive, or, in some cases, incompatible. Thus, future research needs to (a) better formalize the definition of each strategy (particularly critical for elaboration and dual coding), (b) identify best practices for implementation in the classroom, (c) delineate the boundary conditions of each strategy, and (d) strategically investigate interactions between the six strategies we outlined in this manuscript.

Aleven, V. A., & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor. Cognitive Science, 26 , 147–179.

Article   Google Scholar  

Anderson, J. R. (1983). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22 , 261–295.

Arnold, K. M., & McDermott, K. B. (2013). Test-potentiated learning: distinguishing between direct and indirect effects of tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39 , 940–945.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Aylwin, S. (1990). Imagery and affect: big questions, little answers. In P. J. Thompson, D. E. Marks, & J. T. E. Richardson (Eds.), Imagery: Current developments . New York: International Library of Psychology.

Google Scholar  

Baldassari, M. J., & Kelley, M. (2012). Make’em laugh? The mnemonic effect of humor in a speech. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 17 , 2–9.

Barker, P. G., & Manji, K. A. (1989). Pictorial dialogue methods. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 31 , 323–347.

Bauernschmidt, A. (2017). GUEST POST: two examples are better than one. [Blog post]. The Learning Scientists Blog . Retrieved from http://www.learningscientists.org/blog/2017/5/30-1 . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Beaven, T. (2016). @doctorwhy @FurtherEdagogy @doc_kristy Right, I thought the whole point of dual coding was to use TWO codes: pics + words of the SAME info? [Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/TitaBeaven/status/807504041341308929 . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Bellezza, F. S., Cheesman, F. L., & Reddy, B. G. (1977). Organization and semantic elaboration in free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 3 , 539–550.

Benney, D. (2016). (Trying to apply) spacing in a content heavy subject [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://mrbenney.wordpress.com/2016/10/16/trying-to-apply-spacing-in-science/ . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Berry, D. C. (1983). Metacognitive experience and transfer of logical reasoning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35A , 39–49.

Birnbaum, M. S., Kornell, N., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2013). Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: the roles of discrimination and retrieval. Memory & Cognition, 41 , 392–402.

Bjork, R. A. (1999). Assessing our own competence: heuristics and illusions. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention and peformance XVII. Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application (pp. 435–459). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185–205). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (1992). A new theory of disuse and an old theory of stimulus fluctuation. From learning processes to cognitive processes: Essays in honor of William K. Estes, 2 , 35–67.

Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society , 56–64.

Blunt, J. R., & Karpicke, J. D. (2014). Learning with retrieval-based concept mapping. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106 , 849–858.

Boulton, K. (2016). What does cognitive overload look like in the humanities? [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://educationechochamberuncut.wordpress.com/2016/03/05/what-does-cognitive-overload-look-like-in-the-humanities-kris-boulton-2/ . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Brown, P. C., Roediger, H. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make it stick . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Butler, A. C. (2010). Repeated testing produces superior transfer of learning relative to repeated studying. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36 , 1118–1133.

Caplan, J. B., & Madan, C. R. (2016). Word-imageability enhances association-memory by recruiting hippocampal activity. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 28 , 1522–1538.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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.

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 , 1095–1102.

Chi, M. T., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18 , 439–477.

Chi, M. T., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5 , 121–152.

CIFE. (2012). No January A level and other changes. Retrieved from http://www.cife.org.uk/cife-general-news/no-january-a-level-and-other-changes/ . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Clark, D. (2016). One book on learning that every teacher, lecturer & trainer should read (7 reasons) [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.com/2016/03/one-book-on-learning-that-every-teacher.html . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3 , 149–210.

Class Teaching. (2013). Deep questioning [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://classteaching.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/deep-questioning/ . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Clinton, V., Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2016). Learning about posterior probability: do diagrams and elaborative interrogation help? The Journal of Experimental Education, 84 , 579–599.

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 , 267–281.

Cooper, H. (1989). Synthesis of research on homework. Educational Leadership, 47 , 85–91.

Corbett, A. T., Reed, S. K., Hoffmann, R., MacLaren, B., & Wagner, A. (2010). Interleaving worked examples and cognitive tutor support for algebraic modeling of problem situations. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2882–2887).

Cox, D. (2015). No stakes testing – not telling students their results [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://missdcoxblog.wordpress.com/2015/06/06/no-stakes-testing-not-telling-students-their-results/ . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Cox, D. (2016a). Ditch revision. Teach it well [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://missdcoxblog.wordpress.com/2016/01/09/ditch-revision-teach-it-well/ . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Cox, D. (2016b). ‘They need to remember this in three years time’: spacing & interleaving for the new GCSEs [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://missdcoxblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/25/they-need-to-remember-this-in-three-years-time-spacing-interleaving-for-the-new-gcses/ . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Craik, F. I. (2002). Levels of processing: past, present… future? Memory, 10 , 305–318.

Craik, F. I., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: a framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11 , 671–684.

Danan, M. (1992). Reversed subtitling and dual coding theory: new directions for foreign language instruction. Language Learning, 42 , 497–527.

Dettmers, S., Trautwein, U., & Lüdtke, O. (2009). The relationship between homework time and achievement is not universal: evidence from multilevel analyses in 40 countries. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 20 , 375–405.

Dirkx, K. J., Kester, L., & Kirschner, P. A. (2014). The testing effect for learning principles and procedures from texts. The Journal of Educational Research, 107 , 357–364.

Dunlosky, J. (2013). Strengthening the student toolbox: study strategies to boost learning. American Educator, 37 (3), 12–21.

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 , 4–58.

Ebbinghaus, H. (1913). Memory (HA Ruger & CE Bussenius, Trans.). New York: Columbia University, Teachers College. (Original work published 1885) . Retrieved from http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Ebbinghaus/memory8.htm . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Eglington, L. G., & Kang, S. H. (2016). Retrieval practice benefits deductive inference. Educational Psychology Review , 1–14.

Eitel, A., & Scheiter, K. (2015). Picture or text first? Explaining sequential effects when learning with pictures and text. Educational Psychology Review, 27 , 153–180.

Engelkamp, J., & Cohen, R. L. (1991). Current issues in memory of action events. Psychological Research, 53 , 175–182.

Engelkamp, J., & Zimmer, H. D. (1984). Motor programme information as a separable memory unit. Psychological Research, 46 , 283–299.

Fawcett, D. (2013). Can I be that little better at……using cognitive science/psychology/neurology to plan learning? [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://reflectionsofmyteaching.blogspot.com/2013/09/can-i-be-that-little-better-atusing.html . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Fiechter, J. L., & Benjamin, A. S. (2017). Diminishing-cues retrieval practice: a memory-enhancing technique that works when regular testing doesn’t. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , 1–9.

Firth, J. (2016). Spacing in teaching practice [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.learningscientists.org/blog/2016/4/12-1 . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Fordham, M. [mfordhamhistory]. (2016). Is there a meaningful distinction in psychology between ‘thinking’ & ‘critical thinking’? [Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/mfordhamhistory/status/809525713623781377 . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Fritz, C. O., Morris, P. E., Nolan, D., & Singleton, J. (2007). Expanding retrieval practice: an effective aid to preschool children’s learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60 , 991–1004.

Gates, A. I. (1917). Recitation as a factory in memorizing. Archives of Psychology, 6.

Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15 , 1–38.

Gorman, A. M. (1961). Recognition memory for nouns as a function of abstractedness and frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61 , 23–39.

Hainselin, M., Picard, L., Manolli, P., Vankerkore-Candas, S., & Bourdin, B. (2017). Hey teacher, don’t leave them kids alone: action is better for memory than reading. Frontiers in Psychology , 8 .

Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90 , 414–434.

Hartland, W., Biddle, C., & Fallacaro, M. (2008). Audiovisual facilitation of clinical knowledge: A paradigm for dispersed student education based on Paivio’s dual coding theory. AANA Journal, 76 , 194–198.

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

Hausman, H., & Kornell, N. (2014). Mixing topics while studying does not enhance learning. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3 , 153–160.

Hinze, S. R., & Rapp, D. N. (2014). Retrieval (sometimes) enhances learning: performance pressure reduces the benefits of retrieval practice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28 , 597–606.

Hirshman, E. (2001). Elaboration in memory. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (pp. 4369–4374). Oxford: Pergamon.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Hobbiss, M. (2016). Make it meaningful! Elaboration [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://hobbolog.wordpress.com/2016/06/09/make-it-meaningful-elaboration/ . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Jones, F. (2016). Homework – is it really that useless? [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.learningscientists.org/blog/2016/4/5-1 . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Kaminski, J. A., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2013). Extraneous perceptual information interferes with children’s acquisition of mathematical knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105 (2), 351–363.

Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M., & Heckler, A. F. (2008). The advantage of abstract examples in learning math. Science, 320 , 454–455.

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.

Kang, S. H. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2007). Test format and corrective feedback modify the effects of testing on long-term retention. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19 , 528–558.

Karpicke, J. D., & Aue, W. R. (2015). The testing effect is alive and well with complex materials. Educational Psychology Review, 27 , 317–326.

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.

Karpicke, J. D., Lehman, M., & Aue, W. R. (2014). Retrieval-based learning: an episodic context account. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 61, pp. 237–284). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.

Karpicke, J. D., Blunt, J. R., & Smith, M. A. (2016). Retrieval-based learning: positive effects of retrieval practice in elementary school children. Frontiers in Psychology, 7 .

Kavale, K. A., Hirshoren, A., & Forness, S. R. (1998). Meta-analytic validation of the Dunn and Dunn model of learning-style preferences: a critique of what was Dunn. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13 , 75–80.

Khanna, M. M. (2015). Ungraded pop quizzes: test-enhanced learning without all the anxiety. Teaching of Psychology, 42 , 174–178.

Kirby, J. (2014). One scientific insight for curriculum design [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://pragmaticreform.wordpress.com/2014/05/05/scientificcurriculumdesign/ . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Kirschner, P. A. (2017). Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Computers & Education, 106 , 166–171.

Kirschner, P. A., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2013). Do learners really know best? Urban legends in education. Educational Psychologist, 48 , 169–183.

Knoll, A. R., Otani, H., Skeel, R. L., & Van Horn, K. R. (2017). Learning style, judgments of learning, and learning of verbal and visual information. British Journal of Psychology, 108 , 544-563.

Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Learning concepts and categories is spacing the “enemy of induction”? Psychological Science, 19 , 585–592.

Kornell, N., & Finn, B. (2016). Self-regulated learning: an overview of theory and data. In J. Dunlosky & S. Tauber (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Metamemory (pp. 325–340). New York: Oxford University Press.

Kornell, N., Klein, P. J., & Rawson, K. A. (2015). Retrieval attempts enhance learning, but retrieval success (versus failure) does not matter. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41 , 283–294.

Kraemer, D. J. M., Rosenberg, L. M., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2009). The neural correlates of visual and verbal cognitive styles. Journal of Neuroscience, 29 , 3792–3798.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kraft, N. (2015). Spaced practice and repercussions for teaching. Retrieved from http://nathankraft.blogspot.com/2015/08/spaced-practice-and-repercussions-for.html . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Learning Scientists. (2016a). Weekly Digest #3: How teachers implement interleaving in their curriculum [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.learningscientists.org/blog/2016/3/28/weekly-digest-3 . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Learning Scientists. (2016b). Weekly Digest #13: how teachers implement retrieval in their classrooms [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.learningscientists.org/blog/2016/6/5/weekly-digest-13 . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Learning Scientists. (2016c). Weekly Digest #40: teachers’ implementation of principles from “Make It Stick” [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.learningscientists.org/blog/2016/12/18-1 . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Learning Scientists. (2017). Weekly Digest #54: is there an app for that? Studying 2.0 [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.learningscientists.org/blog/2017/4/9/weekly-digest-54 . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

LeFevre, J.-A., & Dixon, P. (1986). Do written instructions need examples? Cognition and Instruction, 3 , 1–30.

Lew, K., Fukawa-Connelly, T., Mejí-Ramos, J. P., & Weber, K. (2016). Lectures in advanced mathematics: Why students might not understand what the mathematics professor is trying to convey. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 47 , 162–198.

Lindsey, R. V., Shroyer, J. D., Pashler, H., & Mozer, M. C. (2014). Improving students’ long-term knowledge retention through personalized review. Psychological Science, 25 , 639–647.

Lipko-Speed, A., Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2014). Does testing with feedback help grade-school children learn key concepts in science? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3 , 171–176.

Lockhart, R. S., & Craik, F. I. (1990). Levels of processing: a retrospective commentary on a framework for memory research. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 44 , 87–112.

Lovell, O. (2017). How do we know what to put on the quiz? [Blog Post]. Retrieved from http://www.ollielovell.com/olliesclassroom/know-put-quiz/ . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Luehmann, A. L. (2008). Using blogging in support of teacher professional identity development: a case study. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17 , 287–337.

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.

Madan, C. R., & Singhal, A. (2012a). Motor imagery and higher-level cognition: four hurdles before research can sprint forward. Cognitive Processing, 13 , 211–229.

Madan, C. R., & Singhal, A. (2012b). Encoding the world around us: motor-related processing influences verbal memory. Consciousness and Cognition, 21 , 1563–1570.

Madan, C. R., & Singhal, A. (2012c). Using actions to enhance memory: effects of enactment, gestures, and exercise on human memory. Frontiers in Psychology, 3 .

Madan, C. R., Chen, Y. Y., & Singhal, A. (2016). ERPs differentially reflect automatic and deliberate processing of the functional manipulability of objects. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10 .

Mandler, G. (1979). Organization and repetition: organizational principles with special reference to rote learning. In L. G. Nilsson (Ed.), Perspectives on Memory Research (pp. 293–327). New York: Academic Press.

Marsh, E. J., Fazio, L. K., & Goswick, A. E. (2012). Memorial consequences of testing school-aged children. Memory, 20 , 899–906.

Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 , 715–726.

Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38 , 43–52.

McDaniel, M. A., & Donnelly, C. M. (1996). Learning with analogy and elaborative interrogation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88 , 508–519.

McDaniel, M. A., Thomas, R. C., Agarwal, P. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2013). Quizzing in middle-school science: successful transfer performance on classroom exams. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27 , 360–372.

McDermott, K. B., Agarwal, P. K., D’Antonio, L., Roediger, H. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Both multiple-choice and short-answer quizzes enhance later exam performance in middle and high school classes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20 , 3–21.

McHugh, A. (2013). High-stakes tests: bad for students, teachers, and education in general [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://teacherbiz.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/high-stakes-tests-bad-for-students-teachers-and-education-in-general/ . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

McNeill, N. M., Uttal, D. H., Jarvin, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (2009). Should you show me the money? Concrete objects both hurt and help performance on mathematics problems. Learning and Instruction, 19 , 171–184.

Meider, W. (1990). “A picture is worth a thousand words”: from advertising slogan to American proverb. Southern Folklore, 47 , 207–225.

Michaela Community School. (2014). Homework. Retrieved from http://mcsbrent.co.uk/homework-2/ . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Montefinese, M., Ambrosini, E., Fairfield, B., & Mammarella, N. (2013). The “subjective” pupil old/new effect: is the truth plain to see? International Journal of Psychophysiology, 89 , 48–56.

O’Neil, H. F., Chung, G. K., Kerr, D., Vendlinski, T. P., Buschang, R. E., & Mayer, R. E. (2014). Adding self-explanation prompts to an educational computer game. Computers In Human Behavior, 30 , 23–28.

Overoye, A. L., & Storm, B. C. (2015). Harnessing the power of uncertainty to enhance learning. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 1 , 140–148.

Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

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

Paivio, A. (2007). Mind and its evolution: a dual coding theoretical approach . Mahwah: Erlbaum.

Paivio, A. (2013). Dual coding theory, word abstractness, and emotion: a critical review of Kousta et al. (2011). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142 , 282–287.

Paivio, A., & Csapo, K. (1969). Concrete image and verbal memory codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 80 , 279–285.

Paivio, A., & Csapo, K. (1973). Picture superiority in free recall: imagery or dual coding? Cognitive Psychology, 5 , 176–206.

Paivio, A., Walsh, M., & Bons, T. (1994). Concreteness effects on memory: when and why? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20 , 1196–1204.

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9 , 105–119.

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 .

Patel, R., Liu, R., & Koedinger, K. (2016). When to block versus interleave practice? Evidence against teaching fraction addition before fraction multiplication. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Philadelphia, PA .

Penfound, B. (2017). Journey to interleaved practice #2 [Blog Post]. Retrieved from https://fullstackcalculus.com/2017/02/03/journey-to-interleaved-practice-2/ . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Penfound, B. [BryanPenfound]. (2016). Does blocked practice/learning lessen cognitive load? Does interleaved practice/learning provide productive struggle? [Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/BryanPenfound/status/808759362244087808 . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Peterson, D. J., & Mulligan, N. W. (2010). Enactment and retrieval. Memory & Cognition, 38 , 233–243.

Picciotto, H. (2009). Lagging homework [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://blog.mathedpage.org/2013/06/lagging-homework.html . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Pomerance, L., Greenberg, J., & Walsh, K. (2016). Learning about learning: what every teacher needs to know. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/Learning_About_Learning_Report . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Postman, L. (1976). Methodology of human learning. In W. K. Estes (Ed.), Handbook of learning and cognitive processes (Vol. 3). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

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 , 291–300.

Reed, S. K. (2008). Concrete examples must jibe with experience. Science, 322 , 1632–1633.

researchED. (2013). How it all began. Retrieved from http://www.researched.org.uk/about/our-story/ . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Ritchie, S. J., Della Sala, S., & McIntosh, R. D. (2013). Retrieval practice, with or without mind mapping, boosts fact learning in primary school children. PLoS One, 8 (11), e78976.

Rittle-Johnson, B. (2006). Promoting transfer: effects of self-explanation and direct instruction. Child Development, 77 , 1–15.

Roediger, H. L. (1985). Remembering Ebbinghaus. [Retrospective review of the book On Memory , by H. Ebbinghaus]. Contemporary Psychology, 30 , 519–523.

Roediger, H. L. (2013). Applying cognitive psychology to education translational educational science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14 , 1–3.

Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power of testing memory: basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1 , 181–210.

Roediger, H. L., Putnam, A. L., & Smith, M. A. (2011). Ten benefits of testing and their applications to educational practice. In J. Mester & B. Ross (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: cognition in education (pp. 1–36). Oxford: Elsevier.

Roediger, H. L., Finn, B., & Weinstein, Y. (2012). Applications of cognitive science to education. In Della Sala, S., & Anderson, M. (Eds.), Neuroscience in education: the good, the bad, and the ugly . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Roelle, J., & Berthold, K. (2017). Effects of incorporating retrieval into learning tasks: the complexity of the tasks matters. Learning and Instruction, 49 , 142–156.

Rohrer, D. (2012). Interleaving helps students distinguish among similar concepts. Educational Psychology Review, 24(3), 355–367.

Rohrer, D., Dedrick, R. F., & Stershic, S. (2015). Interleaved practice improves mathematics learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107 , 900–908.

Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2012). Learning styles: Where’s the evidence? Medical Education, 46 , 34–35.

Rohrer, D., & Taylor, K. (2007). The shuffling of mathematics problems improves learning. Instructional Science, 35 , 481–498.

Rose, N. (2014). Improving the effectiveness of homework [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://evidenceintopractice.wordpress.com/2014/03/20/improving-the-effectiveness-of-homework/ . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Sadoski, M. (2005). A dual coding view of vocabulary learning. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 21 , 221–238.

Saunders, K. (2016). It really is time we stopped talking about learning styles [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://martingsaunders.com/2016/10/it-really-is-time-we-stopped-talking-about-learning-styles/ . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Schwartz, D. (2007). If a picture is worth a thousand words, why are you reading this essay? Social Psychology Quarterly, 70 , 319–321.

Shumaker, H. (2016). Homework is wrecking our kids: the research is clear, let’s ban elementary homework. Salon. Retrieved from http://www.salon.com/2016/03/05/homework_is_wrecking_our_kids_the_research_is_clear_lets_ban_elementary_homework . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Smith, A. M., Floerke, V. A., & Thomas, A. K. (2016). Retrieval practice protects memory against acute stress. Science, 354 , 1046–1048.

Smith, M. A., Blunt, J. R., Whiffen, J. W., & Karpicke, J. D. (2016). Does providing prompts during retrieval practice improve learning? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30 , 784–802.

Smith, M. A., & Karpicke, J. D. (2014). Retrieval practice with short-answer, multiple-choice, and hybrid formats. Memory, 22 , 784–802.

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.

Son, J. Y., & Rivas, M. J. (2016). Designing clicker questions to stimulate transfer. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 2 , 193–207.

Szpunar, K. K., Khan, N. Y., & Schacter, D. L. (2013). Interpolated memory tests reduce mind wandering and improve learning of online lectures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 , 6313–6317.

Thomson, R., & Mehring, J. (2016). Better vocabulary study strategies for long-term learning. Kwansei Gakuin University Humanities Review, 20 , 133–141.

Trafton, J. G., & Reiser, B. J. (1993). Studying examples and solving problems: contributions to skill acquisition . Technical report, Naval HCI Research Lab, Washington, DC, USA.

Tran, R., Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2015). Retrieval practice: the lack of transfer to deductive inferences. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22 , 135–140.

Turner, K. [doc_kristy]. (2016a). My dual coding (in red) and some y8 work @AceThatTest they really enjoyed practising the technique [Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/doc_kristy/status/807220355395977216 . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Turner, K. [doc_kristy]. (2016b). @FurtherEdagogy @doctorwhy their work is revision work, they already have the words on a different page, to compliment not replace [Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/doc_kristy/status/807360265100599301 . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Valle, A., Regueiro, B., Núñez, J. C., Rodríguez, S., Piñeiro, I., & Rosário, P. (2016). Academic goals, student homework engagement, and academic achievement in elementary school. Frontiers in Psychology, 7 .

Van Gog, T., & Sweller, J. (2015). Not new, but nearly forgotten: the testing effect decreases or even disappears as the complexity of learning materials increases. Educational Psychology Review, 27 , 247–264.

Wammes, J. D., Meade, M. E., & Fernandes, M. A. (2016). The drawing effect: evidence for reliable and robust memory benefits in free recall. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69 , 1752–1776.

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.

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.

Weinstein, Y., & Weinstein-Jones, F. (2017). Topic and quiz spacing spreadsheet: a planning tool for teachers [Blog Post]. Retrieved from http://www.learningscientists.org/blog/2017/5/11-1 . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Weinstein-Jones, F., & Weinstein, Y. (2017). Topic spacing spreadsheet for teachers [Excel macro]. Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.573764 . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Williams, D. [FurtherEdagogy]. (2016). @doctorwhy @doc_kristy word accompanying the visual? I’m unclear how removing words benefit? Would a flow chart better suit a scientific exp? [Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/FurtherEdagogy/status/807356800509104128 . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Wood, B. (2017). And now for something a little bit different….[Blog post]. Retrieved from https://justateacherstandinginfrontofaclass.wordpress.com/2017/04/20/and-now-for-something-a-little-bit-different/ . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Wooldridge, C. L., Bugg, J. M., McDaniel, M. A., & Liu, Y. (2014). The testing effect with authentic educational materials: a cautionary note. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3 , 214–221.

Young, C. (2016). Mini-tests. Retrieved from https://colleenyoung.wordpress.com/revision-activities/mini-tests/ . Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

YW and MAS were partially supported by a grant from The IDEA Center.

Availability of data and materials

Author information, authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA, USA

Yana Weinstein

Department of Psychology, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA

Christopher R. Madan

School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

Department of Psychology, Rhode Island College, Providence, RI, USA

Megan A. Sumeracki

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

YW took the lead on writing the “Spaced practice”, “Interleaving”, and “Elaboration” sections. CRM took the lead on writing the “Concrete examples” and “Dual coding” sections. MAS took the lead on writing the “Retrieval practice” section. All authors edited each others’ sections. All authors were involved in the conception and writing of the manuscript. All authors gave approval of the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yana Weinstein .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

YW and MAS run a blog, “The Learning Scientists Blog”, which is cited in the tutorial review. The blog does not make money. Free resources on the strategies described in this tutorial review are provided on the blog. Occasionally, YW and MAS are invited by schools/school districts to present research findings from cognitive psychology applied to education.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Weinstein, Y., Madan, C.R. & Sumeracki, M.A. Teaching the science of learning. Cogn. Research 3 , 2 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-017-0087-y

Download citation

Received : 20 December 2016

Accepted : 02 December 2017

Published : 24 January 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-017-0087-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals

Education articles from across Nature Portfolio

Latest research and reviews.

Design principles for integrating science practices with conceptual understanding: an example from a digital learning environment on microbial resistance to antibiotics

• Constantinos P. Constantinou
• Eliza Rybska

Investigating lexical categorization in reading based on joint diagnostic and training approaches for language learners

• Benjamin Gagl
• Klara Gregorová

Neglecting students’ socio-emotional skills magnified learning losses during the pandemic

• Guilherme Lichand
• Julien Christen
• Eppie Van Egeraat

Using social network analysis to investigate mathematical connections in U.S. and Chinese textbook problems

• Lianghuo Fan

A systematic review of Stimulated Recall (SR) in educational research from 2012 to 2022

• Xuesong Zhai
• Xiaoyan Chu
• Jonathan Michael Spector

Simulation-based training for intraoperative posterior capsule rupture management: an analysis of nontechnical skills development and the relationship between technical and nontechnical skills

• Thomas Charles Wood
• Sundas Maqsood

News and Comment

How to plug the female mentoring gap in Latin American science

Female academics who are keen to advance their careers need to see other women in leadership positions. Social stereotyping prevents that, argues Vanessa Gottifredi.

• Julie Gould

Ready or not, AI is coming to science education — and students have opinions

As educators debate whether it’s even possible to use AI safely in research and education, students are taking a role in shaping its responsible use.

• Sarah Wells

After the genocide: what scientists are learning from Rwanda

Thirty years after the genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, Nature met with researchers who are gaining insights that could help to prevent other atrocities and enable healing.

• Nisha Gaind

How can we make PhD training fit for the modern world? Broaden its philosophical foundations

• Ganesh Alagarasan

Clean cooking in rural Namibia

• Silvana Lakeman

Techniques for supercharging academic writing with generative AI

Generalist large language models can elevate the quality and efficiency of academic writing.

• Zhicheng Lin

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Our Mission

The 10 Most Significant Education Studies of 2021

From reframing our notion of “good” schools to mining the magic of expert teachers, here’s a curated list of must-read research from 2021.

It was a year of unprecedented hardship for teachers and school leaders. We pored through hundreds of studies to see if we could follow the trail of exactly what happened: The research revealed a complex portrait of a grueling year during which persistent issues of burnout and mental and physical health impacted millions of educators. Meanwhile, many of the old debates continued: Does paper beat digital? Is project-based learning as effective as direct instruction? How do you define what a “good” school is?

Other studies grabbed our attention, and in a few cases, made headlines. Researchers from the University of Chicago and Columbia University turned artificial intelligence loose on some 1,130 award-winning children’s books in search of invisible patterns of bias. (Spoiler alert: They found some.) Another study revealed why many parents are reluctant to support social and emotional learning in schools—and provided hints about how educators can flip the script.

1. What Parents Fear About SEL (and How to Change Their Minds)

When researchers at the Fordham Institute asked parents to rank phrases associated with social and emotional learning , nothing seemed to add up. The term “social-emotional learning” was very unpopular; parents wanted to steer their kids clear of it. But when the researchers added a simple clause, forming a new phrase—”social-emotional & academic learning”—the program shot all the way up to No. 2 in the rankings.

What gives?

Parents were picking up subtle cues in the list of SEL-related terms that irked or worried them, the researchers suggest. Phrases like “soft skills” and “growth mindset” felt “nebulous” and devoid of academic content. For some, the language felt suspiciously like “code for liberal indoctrination.”

But the study suggests that parents might need the simplest of reassurances to break through the political noise. Removing the jargon, focusing on productive phrases like “life skills,” and relentlessly connecting SEL to academic progress puts parents at ease—and seems to save social and emotional learning in the process.

2. The Secret Management Techniques of Expert Teachers

In the hands of experienced teachers, classroom management can seem almost invisible: Subtle techniques are quietly at work behind the scenes, with students falling into orderly routines and engaging in rigorous academic tasks almost as if by magic. 

That’s no accident, according to new research . While outbursts are inevitable in school settings, expert teachers seed their classrooms with proactive, relationship-building strategies that often prevent misbehavior before it erupts. They also approach discipline more holistically than their less-experienced counterparts, consistently reframing misbehavior in the broader context of how lessons can be more engaging, or how clearly they communicate expectations.

Focusing on the underlying dynamics of classroom behavior—and not on surface-level disruptions—means that expert teachers often look the other way at all the right times, too. Rather than rise to the bait of a minor breach in etiquette, a common mistake of new teachers, they tend to play the long game, asking questions about the origins of misbehavior, deftly navigating the terrain between discipline and student autonomy, and opting to confront misconduct privately when possible.

3. The Surprising Power of Pretesting

Asking students to take a practice test before they’ve even encountered the material may seem like a waste of time—after all, they’d just be guessing.

But new research concludes that the approach, called pretesting, is actually more effective than other typical study strategies. Surprisingly, pretesting even beat out taking practice tests after learning the material, a proven strategy endorsed by cognitive scientists and educators alike. In the study, students who took a practice test before learning the material outperformed their peers who studied more traditionally by 49 percent on a follow-up test, while outperforming students who took practice tests after studying the material by 27 percent.

The researchers hypothesize that the “generation of errors” was a key to the strategy’s success, spurring student curiosity and priming them to “search for the correct answers” when they finally explored the new material—and adding grist to a 2018 study that found that making educated guesses helped students connect background knowledge to new material.

Learning is more durable when students do the hard work of correcting misconceptions, the research suggests, reminding us yet again that being wrong is an important milestone on the road to being right.

4. Confronting an Old Myth About Immigrant Students

Immigrant students are sometimes portrayed as a costly expense to the education system, but new research is systematically dismantling that myth.

In a 2021 study , researchers analyzed over 1.3 million academic and birth records for students in Florida communities, and concluded that the presence of immigrant students actually has “a positive effect on the academic achievement of U.S.-born students,” raising test scores as the size of the immigrant school population increases. The benefits were especially powerful for low-income students.

While immigrants initially “face challenges in assimilation that may require additional school resources,” the researchers concluded, hard work and resilience may allow them to excel and thus “positively affect exposed U.S.-born students’ attitudes and behavior.” But according to teacher Larry Ferlazzo, the improvements might stem from the fact that having English language learners in classes improves pedagogy , pushing teachers to consider “issues like prior knowledge, scaffolding, and maximizing accessibility.”

5. A Fuller Picture of What a ‘Good’ School Is

It’s time to rethink our definition of what a “good school” is, researchers assert in a study published in late 2020.⁣ That’s because typical measures of school quality like test scores often provide an incomplete and misleading picture, the researchers found.

The study looked at over 150,000 ninth-grade students who attended Chicago public schools and concluded that emphasizing the social and emotional dimensions of learning—relationship-building, a sense of belonging, and resilience, for example—improves high school graduation and college matriculation rates for both high- and low-income students, beating out schools that focus primarily on improving test scores.⁣

“Schools that promote socio-emotional development actually have a really big positive impact on kids,” said lead researcher C. Kirabo Jackson in an interview with Edutopia . “And these impacts are particularly large for vulnerable student populations who don’t tend to do very well in the education system.”

The findings reinforce the importance of a holistic approach to measuring student progress, and are a reminder that schools—and teachers—can influence students in ways that are difficult to measure, and may only materialize well into the future.⁣

6. Teaching Is Learning

One of the best ways to learn a concept is to teach it to someone else. But do you actually have to step into the shoes of a teacher, or does the mere expectation of teaching do the trick?

In a 2021 study , researchers split students into two groups and gave them each a science passage about the Doppler effect—a phenomenon associated with sound and light waves that explains the gradual change in tone and pitch as a car races off into the distance, for example. One group studied the text as preparation for a test; the other was told that they’d be teaching the material to another student.

The researchers never carried out the second half of the activity—students read the passages but never taught the lesson. All of the participants were then tested on their factual recall of the Doppler effect, and their ability to draw deeper conclusions from the reading.

The upshot? Students who prepared to teach outperformed their counterparts in both duration and depth of learning, scoring 9 percent higher on factual recall a week after the lessons concluded, and 24 percent higher on their ability to make inferences. The research suggests that asking students to prepare to teach something—or encouraging them to think “could I teach this to someone else?”—can significantly alter their learning trajectories.

7. A Disturbing Strain of Bias in Kids’ Books

Some of the most popular and well-regarded children’s books—Caldecott and Newbery honorees among them—persistently depict Black, Asian, and Hispanic characters with lighter skin, according to new research .

Using artificial intelligence, researchers combed through 1,130 children’s books written in the last century, comparing two sets of diverse children’s books—one a collection of popular books that garnered major literary awards, the other favored by identity-based awards. The software analyzed data on skin tone, race, age, and gender.

Among the findings: While more characters with darker skin color begin to appear over time, the most popular books—those most frequently checked out of libraries and lining classroom bookshelves—continue to depict people of color in lighter skin tones. More insidiously, when adult characters are “moral or upstanding,” their skin color tends to appear lighter, the study’s lead author, Anjali Aduki,  told The 74 , with some books converting “Martin Luther King Jr.’s chocolate complexion to a light brown or beige.” Female characters, meanwhile, are often seen but not heard.

Cultural representations are a reflection of our values, the researchers conclude: “Inequality in representation, therefore, constitutes an explicit statement of inequality of value.”

8. The Never-Ending ‘Paper Versus Digital’ War

The argument goes like this: Digital screens turn reading into a cold and impersonal task; they’re good for information foraging, and not much more. “Real” books, meanwhile, have a heft and “tactility”  that make them intimate, enchanting—and irreplaceable.

But researchers have often found weak or equivocal evidence for the superiority of reading on paper. While a recent study concluded that paper books yielded better comprehension than e-books when many of the digital tools had been removed, the effect sizes were small. A 2021 meta-analysis further muddies the water: When digital and paper books are “mostly similar,” kids comprehend the print version more readily—but when enhancements like motion and sound “target the story content,” e-books generally have the edge.

Nostalgia is a force that every new technology must eventually confront. There’s plenty of evidence that writing with pen and paper encodes learning more deeply than typing. But new digital book formats come preloaded with powerful tools that allow readers to annotate, look up words, answer embedded questions, and share their thinking with other readers.

We may not be ready to admit it, but these are precisely the kinds of activities that drive deeper engagement, enhance comprehension, and leave us with a lasting memory of what we’ve read. The future of e-reading, despite the naysayers, remains promising.

9. New Research Makes a Powerful Case for PBL

Many classrooms today still look like they did 100 years ago, when students were preparing for factory jobs. But the world’s moved on: Modern careers demand a more sophisticated set of skills—collaboration, advanced problem-solving, and creativity, for example—and those can be difficult to teach in classrooms that rarely give students the time and space to develop those competencies.

Project-based learning (PBL) would seem like an ideal solution. But critics say PBL places too much responsibility on novice learners, ignoring the evidence about the effectiveness of direct instruction and ultimately undermining subject fluency. Advocates counter that student-centered learning and direct instruction can and should coexist in classrooms.

Now two new large-scale studies —encompassing over 6,000 students in 114 diverse schools across the nation—provide evidence that a well-structured, project-based approach boosts learning for a wide range of students.

In the studies, which were funded by Lucas Education Research, a sister division of Edutopia , elementary and high school students engaged in challenging projects that had them designing water systems for local farms, or creating toys using simple household objects to learn about gravity, friction, and force. Subsequent testing revealed notable learning gains—well above those experienced by students in traditional classrooms—and those gains seemed to raise all boats, persisting across socioeconomic class, race, and reading levels.

10. Tracking a Tumultuous Year for Teachers

The Covid-19 pandemic cast a long shadow over the lives of educators in 2021, according to a year’s worth of research.

The average teacher’s workload suddenly “spiked last spring,” wrote the Center for Reinventing Public Education in its January 2021 report, and then—in defiance of the laws of motion—simply never let up. By the fall, a RAND study recorded an astonishing shift in work habits: 24 percent of teachers reported that they were working 56 hours or more per week, compared to 5 percent pre-pandemic.

The vaccine was the promised land, but when it arrived nothing seemed to change. In an April 2021 survey  conducted four months after the first vaccine was administered in New York City, 92 percent of teachers said their jobs were more stressful than prior to the pandemic, up from 81 percent in an earlier survey.

It wasn’t just the length of the work days; a close look at the research reveals that the school system’s failure to adjust expectations was ruinous. It seemed to start with the obligations of hybrid teaching, which surfaced in Edutopia ’s coverage of overseas school reopenings. In June 2020, well before many U.S. schools reopened, we reported that hybrid teaching was an emerging problem internationally, and warned that if the “model is to work well for any period of time,” schools must “recognize and seek to reduce the workload for teachers.” Almost eight months later, a 2021 RAND study identified hybrid teaching as a primary source of teacher stress in the U.S., easily outpacing factors like the health of a high-risk loved one.

New and ever-increasing demands for tech solutions put teachers on a knife’s edge. In several important 2021 studies, researchers concluded that teachers were being pushed to adopt new technology without the “resources and equipment necessary for its correct didactic use.” Consequently, they were spending more than 20 hours a week adapting lessons for online use, and experiencing an unprecedented erosion of the boundaries between their work and home lives, leading to an unsustainable “always on” mentality. When it seemed like nothing more could be piled on—when all of the lights were blinking red—the federal government restarted standardized testing .

Change will be hard; many of the pathologies that exist in the system now predate the pandemic. But creating strict school policies that separate work from rest, eliminating the adoption of new tech tools without proper supports, distributing surveys regularly to gauge teacher well-being, and above all listening to educators to identify and confront emerging problems might be a good place to start, if the research can be believed.

Schedule an

Education research , consultation , journals publishing education research.

Education research is the scientific field of study that examines education and learning processes and the human attributes, interactions, organizations, and institutions that shape educational outcomes. Scholarship in the field seeks to describe, understand, and explain how learning takes place throughout a person’s life and how formal and informal contexts of education affect all forms of learning. Education research embraces the full spectrum of rigorous methods appropriate to the questions being asked and drives the development of new tools and methods.

Below, you will find a list of journals that focus on publishing education research across disciplines.

Active Learning Journal (Impact Factor 5.337)

Active Learning in Higher Educatio n is an international, refereed publication for all those who teach and support learning in higher education (HE) and those who undertake or use research into effective learning, teaching, and assessment in universities and colleges. The journal is devoted to publishing accounts of research covering all aspects of learning and teaching concerning adults in higher education. Non-discipline specific and non-context/ country-specific in nature.

The American Biology Teacher

The American Biology Teacher (ABT) is an award-winning, peer-refereed professional journal for K-16 biology teachers. Topics covered in the journal include modern biology content, teaching strategies for the classroom and laboratory, field activities, applications, professional development, social and ethical implications of biology, and ways to incorporate such concerns into instructional programs, as well as reviews of books and classroom technology products.

The American Journal of Education (Cite Score 2.9)

The American Journal of Education seeks to bridge and integrate the intellectual, methodological, and substantive diversity of educational scholarship and to encourage a vigorous dialogue between educational scholars and policymakers. It publishes empirical research, from a wide range of traditions, that contributes to the development of knowledge across the broad field of education.

American Educational Research Journal (Impact Factor 4.811)

CBE-Life Sciences Education (Impact Factor 4.317)

CBE—Life Sciences Education (LSE), a free, online quarterly journal, is published by the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB). LSE publishes peer-reviewed articles on life science education at the K–12, undergraduate, and graduate levels. Within biology, LSE focuses on how students are introduced to the study of life sciences, as well as approaches in cell biology, developmental biology, neuroscience, biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, genomics, bioinformatics, and proteomics. LSE is written by and to serve professionals engaged in biology teaching in all environments, including faculty at large research universities who teach but do not view teaching as their primary mission, as well as those whose teaching is the major focus of their careers, in primarily undergraduate institutions, museums and outreach programs, junior and community colleges, and K–12 schools. Since its inception, LSE has been supported in part by a grant from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI).

Cognition and Instruction (Impact Factor 4.897)

Computers and Education (Impact Factor 8.538)

Computers & Education aims to increase knowledge and understanding of ways in which digital technology can enhance education, through the publication of high-quality research, which extends theory and practice. The Editors welcome research papers on the pedagogical uses of digital technology, where the focus is broad enough to be of interest to a wider education community.

Council on Undergraduate Research Journals  

The mission of the Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR) is to support and promote high-quality mentored undergraduate research, scholarship, and creative inquiry. CUR provides support and professional development opportunities for faculty, staff, administrators, and students. Our publications and outreach activities are designed to share successful models and strategies for establishing, nurturing, and institutionalizing undergraduate research programs. We recognize institutions that have exemplary undergraduate research programs and faculty who have facilitated undergraduate research at their institutions through their mentorship and leadership.

Chem Ed Research and Practice (Impact Factor 2.959)

Chemistry Education Research and Practice (CERP) is a journal for teachers, researchers, and other practitioners at all levels of chemistry education. It is published free of charge, electronically, four times a year; coverage includes the following.

• Research, and reviews of research, in chemistry education
• Evaluations of effective innovative practice in the teaching of chemistry
• In-depth analyses of issues of direct relevance to chemistry education

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis (Impact Factor 3.347)

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis (EEPA) publishes rigorous, policy-relevant research of interest to those engaged in educational policy analysis, evaluation, and decision making. EEPA is a multidisciplinary journal, and editors consider original research from multiple disciplines, theoretical orientations, and methodologies. A publication of the American Educational Research Association (AERA).

Educational Researcher (Impact Factor 4.854)

Publishes scholarly articles that are of general significance to the education research community and that come from a wide range of areas of education research and related disciplines. Educational Researcher (ER) aims to make major programmatic research and new findings of broad importance widely accessible. ER encourages submissions of three types of research articles—feature articles, reviews/essays, and briefs. Technical comments may also be submitted. In addition, ER publishes commentary articles under the demarcations of policy forum, letters, and books et al.  A publication of the American Educational Research Association (AERA).

International Journal of Educational Research (Impact Factor 1.976)

The International Journal of Educational Research publishes research manuscripts in the field of education. The aims and scope are to:

• Provide a journal that reports research on topics that are of international significance across educational contexts
• Publish high-quality manuscripts that are of international significance in terms of design and/or findings
• Encourage collaboration by international teams of researchers to create special issues on these topics

International Journal of Science Education (Impact Factor 0.46)

IJSE(A) publishes scholarly papers that focus on the teaching and learning of science in school settings ranging from early childhood to university education. It bridges the gap between research and practice, providing information, ideas, and opinion. IJSE(A) welcomes contributions from any country provided that the authors explain their local contexts and demonstrate the significance of their work for a global readership. Special emphasis is placed on applicable research relevant to educational practice, guided by educational realities in systems, schools, colleges, and universities.  IJSE(A) also welcomes manuscripts on the integration of science education with other disciplines, in particular STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) or, geography, social sciences, and the arts.

International Journal of STEM Education (Impact Factor 5.012)

The International Journal of STEM Education is a multidisciplinary journal in subject-content education that focuses on the study of teaching and learning in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). It is being established as a new, forward-looking journal in the field of education. As a peer-reviewed journal, it is positioned to promote research and educational development in the rapidly evolving field of STEM education around the world.  The International Journal of STEM Education provides a unique platform for sharing research regarding, among other topics, the design and implementation of technology-rich learning environments, innovative pedagogies, and curricula in STEM education that promote successful learning in PK-16 levels including teacher education. We are also interested in studies that address specific challenges in improving students’ achievement, approaches used to motivate and engage students, and lessons learned from changes in curriculum and instruction in STEM education. The journal encourages translational STEM education research that bridges research and educational policy and practice for STEM education improvement. Interdisciplinary research contributions are preferred. (Fees for Publication).

Journal of Biological Education (Impact Factor 1.262)

Journal of Biological Education aims to bridge the gap between research and practice in biology education and examines advances in biology research and teaching.  The journal provides a forum where the latest advances in research into the teaching, learning, and assessment of biology can contribute to policy and practice in biological education for all ages, connecting teachers, researchers, and educators in a common endeavor to enhance biological education internationally. Special emphasis is placed on research relevant to educational practice, guided by educational realities in systems, schools, colleges, universities (including biology teacher education), and informal learning settings, and manuscripts are welcome from educators and researchers working in these settings.

Journal of Chemical Education (Impact Factor 2.979)

The Journal of Chemical Education publishes peer-reviewed articles and related information as a resource to those in the field of chemical education and to those institutions that serve them. The journal typically addresses chemical content, laboratory experiments, instructional methods, and pedagogies. JCE serves as a means of communication among people across the world who are interested in the teaching and learning of chemistry. The global audience includes instructors of chemistry from middle school through graduate school, professional staff who support these teaching activities, as well as some scientists in commerce, industry, and government.

Journal of Educational Psychology (Impact Factor 7.954)

The main purpose of the Journal of Educational Psychology ® is to publish original, primary psychological research pertaining to education across all ages and educational levels. A secondary purpose of the Journal is the occasional publication of exceptionally important theoretical and review articles that are pertinent to educational psychology. Please note, that the Journal does not typically publish reliability and validity studies of specific tests or assessment instruments.

Journal of Educational & Behavioral Statistics (Impact Factor 3.288)

The Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics provides an outlet for papers that are original and useful to those applying statistical approaches to problems and issues in educational or behavioral research. Typical papers will present new methods of analysis. In addition, critical reviews of current practice, tutorial presentations of less well-known methods, and novel applications of already-known methods will be published. Papers discussing statistical techniques without specific educational or behavioral interest will have lower priority.

Journal of Higher Education (Impact Factor 3.108)

The Journal of Higher Education publishes research into the academic study of higher education addressing institutional and educational developments issues. Founded in 1930, The Journal of Higher Education publishes original research reporting on the academic study of higher education as a broad enterprise. We publish the highest quality empirical, theoretically grounded work addressing the main functions of higher education and the dynamic role of the university in society. We seek to publish scholarship from a wide variety of theoretical perspectives and disciplinary orientations. Articles appearing in the Journal employ an array of methodological approaches, and we welcome work from scholars across a range of career stages. Comparative and international scholarship should make clear connections to the U.S. context.

Journal of the Learning Sciences (Impact Factor 5.171)

Journal of the Learning Sciences (JLS) provides a multidisciplinary forum for research on education and learning that informs theories of how people learn and the design of learning environments. It publishes research that elucidates processes of learning and the ways in which technologies, instructional practices, and learning environments can be designed to support learning in different contexts. JLS articles draw on theoretical frameworks from such diverse fields as cognitive science, sociocultural theory, educational psychology, computer science, and anthropology. Submissions are not limited to any particular research method, but all must be based on rigorous analyses that present new insights into how people learn and/or how learning can be supported and enhanced.

Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education (Impact Factor 0.94)

As ASM'S first open-access education journal, the Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education (JMBE) offers original, previously unpublished, peer-reviewed articles that foster scholarly teaching, and provide readily adoptable resources in biology education at the undergraduate, graduate, professional (e.g., medical school), K-12 outreach, and informal education level. JMBE is edited by informed science educators who are active in the pursuit of scholarly teaching and biology education reform. The scope of the JMBE is rooted in the biological sciences and branches to other disciplines.  The journal publishes articles addressing such topics as good pedagogy and design, student interest and motivation, recruitment and retention, citizen science, and institutional transformation.

Journal of Science Education & Technology (Impact Factor 2.315)

Journal of Science Education and Technology is an interdisciplinary forum for the publication of original peer-reviewed, contributed, and invited research articles of the highest quality that address the intersection of science education and technology with implications for improving and enhancing science education at all levels across the world. Topics covered can be categorized as disciplinary (biology, chemistry, physics, as well as some applications of computer science and engineering, including the processes of learning, teaching, and teacher development), technological (hardware, software, designed and situated environments involving applications characterized as with, through and in), and organizational (legislation, administration, implementation and teacher enhancement). Insofar as technology plays an ever-increasing role in our understanding and development of science disciplines, in the social relationships among people, information, and institutions, the journal includes it as a component of science education.

Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research

With approximately a 50% acceptance rate, the Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research aims to promote high-quality education at all levels in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology through peer-reviewed articles that provide information that is well-founded in STEM content, such as submissions that:

• are case studies and other innovations in education
• informed by educational research
• have been tested through assessment of the impact on student learning
• have results from educational research that informs teaching and learning in STEM
• regard recent developments that impact STEM education in such areas as policy and industry needs

Journal of Research in Science Teaching (Impact Factor 4.832)

The Journal of Research in Science Teaching (JSRT) publishes reports for science education researchers and practitioners on issues of science teaching and learning and science education policy. JRST) seeks to work with scholars from a range of institutional affiliations, nationalities, and career stages. We are committed to increasing diversity and inclusion in research and publishing from applicants of all ethnicities, races, religions, sexes, sexual orientations, gender identities, national origins, disabilities, ages, or other individual statuses. We encourage all authors to engage with and cite sources by scholars and other writers from groups that are often excluded or ignored within academia. Additionally, we ask reviewers to consider, among other evaluation criteria, whether the citations for a given submission reflect the journal's commitment to diversity.

Learning & Instruction (Impact Factor 5.146)

As an international, multi-disciplinary, peer-refereed journal, Learning and Instruction provides a platform for the publication of the most advanced scientific research in the areas of learning, development, instruction, and teaching. The journal welcomes original empirical investigations. The papers may represent a variety of theoretical perspectives and different methodological approaches. They may refer to any age level, from infants to adults, and to a diversity of learning and instructional settings, from laboratory experiments to field studies. The major criteria in the review and the selection process concern the significance of the contribution to the area of learning and instruction, and the rigor of the study.

Research in Higher Education (Impact Factor 3.000 )

Research in Higher Education publishes studies that examine issues pertaining to postsecondary education. The journal is open to studies using a wide range of methods, but it has a particular interest in studies that apply advanced quantitative research methods to issues in postsecondary education or address postsecondary education policy issues. Topics of interest to the journal include access and retention; student success; equity; faculty issues; institutional productivity and assessment; postsecondary education governance; curriculum and instruction; state and federal higher education policy; and financing of postsecondary education.

Review of Educational Research (Impact Factor 12.565)

The Review of Educational Research (RER) quarterly publishes critical, integrative reviews of research literature bearing on education. Such reviews should include conceptualizations, interpretations, and syntheses of literature and scholarly work in a field broadly relevant to education and educational research. RER encourages the submission of research relevant to education from any discipline, such as reviews of research in psychology, sociology, history, philosophy, political science, economics, computer science, statistics, anthropology, and biology, provided that the review bears on educational issues. RER does not publish original empirical research unless it is incorporated in a broader integrative review. (A publication of AERA)

Review of Research in Education (Impact Factor 5.179)

Review of Research in Education (RRE), published annually, provides a forum for analytic research reviews on selected education topics of significance to the field. Each volume addresses a topic of broad relevance to education and learning and publishes articles that critically examine diverse literature and bodies of knowledge across relevant disciplines and fields. RRE volumes advance the state of the knowledge, promote discussion, and shape directions for future research. (A publication of AERA).

Science Education (Impact Factor 4.593)

Science Education publishes original articles on the latest issues and trends occurring internationally in science curriculum, instruction, learning, policy, and preparation of science teachers with the aim to advance our knowledge of science education theory and practice.  The current turmoil associated with anti-Black racism, global warming, and the COVID pandemic forces us to consider anew how science education research tends to overlook the importance of better preparing communities and society to respond to societal and environmental challenges. We are advocating for a renewed emphasis on science education research that affords individuals and communities the tools for productive scientific sensemaking. We view science when conducted equitably as offering knowledge to help make living on the Earth more sustainable and just. This shift in emphasis will require profound changes so science education research can better guide all aspects of contemporary science teaching and learning. Otherwise, problematic patterns will remain.

Studies in Higher Education ( Impact Factor 3.823)

Studies in Higher Education is a leading international journal publishing research-based articles dealing with higher education issues from either a disciplinary or multi-disciplinary perspective. Empirical, theoretical, and conceptual articles of significant originality will be considered. The Journal welcomes contributions that seek to enhance understanding of higher education policy, institutional management and performance, teaching and learning, and the contribution of higher education to society and the economy. Comparative studies and analysis of inter-system and cross-national issues are also welcomed, as are those addressing global and international themes.

Studies in Science Education (Impact Factor 3.417)

The central aim of Studies in Science Education is to publish review articles of the highest quality which provide analytical syntheses of research into key topics and issues in science education... of interest to all those involved in science education including science education researchers, doctoral and master degree students; science teachers at elementary, high school and university levels; science education policymakers; science education curriculum developers and textbook writers.

Teaching in Higher Education (Impact Factor 3.506)

Teaching in Higher Education addresses this gap by publishing scholarly work that critically examines and interrogates the values and presuppositions underpinning teaching introduces theoretical perspectives and insights drawn from different disciplinary and methodological frameworks and considers how teaching and research can be brought into a closer relationship. Teaching in Higher Education offers a particular challenge to develop a discourse of teaching and learning which transcends disciplinary boundaries and specialisms whilst drawing upon the rigor of a range of disciplines and takes a view of learning which entails concepts of transformation and critique in relation to dominant traditions and visions. It will therefore appeal to those who wish to explore how such aims might be realized through a commitment to teaching in a variety of cultural and disciplinary contexts represented in higher education internationally. The journal welcomes contributions that aim to develop sustained reflection, investigation, and critique, and that critically identify new agendas for research, for example by:

• examining the impact on teaching exerted by wider contextual factors such as policy, funding, institutional change, and the expectations of society;
• developing conceptual analyses of pedagogical issues and debates, such as authority, power, assessment, and the nature of understanding;
• exploring the various values which underlie teaching including those concerned with social justice and equity;
• offering critical accounts of lived experiences of higher education pedagogies that bring together theory and practice.

Additional Links

• Executive Leadership
• University Library
• School of Engineering
• School of Natural Sciences
• School of Social Sciences, Humanities & Arts
• Ernest & Julio Gallo Management Program
• Division of Graduate Education
• Division of Undergraduate Education

Administration

• Office of the Chancellor
• Office of Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost
• Equity, Justice and Inclusive Excellence
• External Relations
• Finance & Administration
• Physical Operations, Planning and Development
• Student Affairs
• Research and Economic Development
• Office of Information Technology

University of California, Merced 5200 North Lake Rd. Merced, CA 95343 Telephone: (209) 228-4400

• © 2024
• About UC Merced
• Privacy/Legal
• Site Feedback
• Accessibility

• Open access
• Published: 10 March 2020

Research and trends in STEM education: a systematic review of journal publications

• Yeping Li 1 ,
• Ke Wang 2 ,
• Yu Xiao 1 &
• Jeffrey E. Froyd 3  

International Journal of STEM Education volume  7 , Article number:  11 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

165k Accesses

149 Citations

8 Altmetric

Metrics details

With the rapid increase in the number of scholarly publications on STEM education in recent years, reviews of the status and trends in STEM education research internationally support the development of the field. For this review, we conducted a systematic analysis of 798 articles in STEM education published between 2000 and the end of 2018 in 36 journals to get an overview about developments in STEM education scholarship. We examined those selected journal publications both quantitatively and qualitatively, including the number of articles published, journals in which the articles were published, authorship nationality, and research topic and methods over the years. The results show that research in STEM education is increasing in importance internationally and that the identity of STEM education journals is becoming clearer over time.

Introduction

A recent review of 144 publications in the International Journal of STEM Education ( IJ - STEM ) showed how scholarship in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education developed between August 2014 and the end of 2018 through the lens of one journal (Li, Froyd, & Wang, 2019 ). The review of articles published in only one journal over a short period of time prompted the need to review the status and trends in STEM education research internationally by analyzing articles published in a wider range of journals over a longer period of time.

With global recognition of the growing importance of STEM education, we have witnessed the urgent need to support research and scholarship in STEM education (Li, 2014 , 2018a ). Researchers and educators have responded to this on-going call and published their scholarly work through many different publication outlets including journals, books, and conference proceedings. A simple Google search with the term “STEM,” “STEM education,” or “STEM education research” all returned more than 450,000,000 items. Such voluminous information shows the rapidly evolving and vibrant field of STEM education and sheds light on the volume of STEM education research. In any field, it is important to know and understand the status and trends in scholarship for the field to develop and be appropriately supported. This applies to STEM education.

Conducting systematic reviews to explore the status and trends in specific disciplines is common in educational research. For example, researchers surveyed the historical development of research in mathematics education (Kilpatrick, 1992 ) and studied patterns in technology usage in mathematics education (Bray & Tangney, 2017 ; Sokolowski, Li, & Willson, 2015 ). In science education, Tsai and his colleagues have conducted a sequence of reviews of journal articles to synthesize research trends in every 5 years since 1998 (i.e., 1998–2002, 2003–2007, 2008–2012, and 2013–2017), based on publications in three main science education journals including, Science Education , the International Journal of Science Education , and the Journal of Research in Science Teaching (e.g., Lin, Lin, Potvin, & Tsai, 2019 ; Tsai & Wen, 2005 ). Erduran, Ozdem, and Park ( 2015 ) reviewed argumentation in science education research from 1998 to 2014 and Minner, Levy, and Century ( 2010 ) reviewed inquiry-based science instruction between 1984 and 2002. There are also many literature reviews and syntheses in engineering and technology education (e.g., Borrego, Foster, & Froyd, 2015 ; Xu, Williams, Gu, & Zhang, 2019 ). All of these reviews have been well received in different fields of traditional disciplinary education as they critically appraise and summarize the state-of-art of relevant research in a field in general or with a specific focus. Both types of reviews have been conducted with different methods for identifying, collecting, and analyzing relevant publications, and they differ in terms of review aim and topic scope, time period, and ways of literature selection. In this review, we systematically analyze journal publications in STEM education research to overview STEM education scholarship development broadly and globally.

The complexity and ambiguity of examining the status and trends in STEM education research

A review of research development in a field is relatively straight forward, when the field is mature and its scope can be well defined. Unlike discipline-based education research (DBER, National Research Council, 2012 ), STEM education is not a well-defined field. Conducting a comprehensive literature review of STEM education research require careful thought and clearly specified scope to tackle the complexity naturally associated with STEM education. In the following sub-sections, we provide some further discussion.

Diverse perspectives about STEM and STEM education

STEM education as explicated by the term does not have a long history. The interest in helping students learn across STEM fields can be traced back to the 1990s when the US National Science Foundation (NSF) formally included engineering and technology with science and mathematics in undergraduate and K-12 school education (e.g., National Science Foundation, 1998 ). It coined the acronym SMET (science, mathematics, engineering, and technology) that was subsequently used by other agencies including the US Congress (e.g., United States Congress House Committee on Science, 1998 ). NSF also coined the acronym STEM to replace SMET (e.g., Christenson, 2011 ; Chute, 2009 ) and it has become the acronym of choice. However, a consensus has not been reached on the disciplines included within STEM.

To clarify its intent, NSF published a list of approved fields it considered under the umbrella of STEM (see http://bit.ly/2Bk1Yp5 ). The list not only includes disciplines widely considered under the STEM tent (called “core” disciplines, such as physics, chemistry, and materials research), but also includes disciplines in psychology and social sciences (e.g., political science, economics). However, NSF’s list of STEM fields is inconsistent with other federal agencies. Gonzalez and Kuenzi ( 2012 ) noted that at least two US agencies, the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, use a narrower definition that excludes social sciences. Researchers also view integration across different disciplines of STEM differently using various terms such as, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary (Vasquez, Sneider, & Comer, 2013 ). These are only two examples of the ambiguity and complexity in describing and specifying what constitutes STEM.

Multiple perspectives about the meaning of STEM education adds further complexity to determining the extent to which scholarly activity can be categorized as STEM education. For example, STEM education can be viewed with a broad and inclusive perspective to include education in the individual disciplines of STEM, i.e., science education, technology education, engineering education, and mathematics education, as well as interdisciplinary or cross-disciplinary combinations of the individual STEM disciplines (English, 2016 ; Li, 2014 ). On the other hand, STEM education can be viewed by others as referring only to interdisciplinary or cross-disciplinary combinations of the individual STEM disciplines (Honey, Pearson, & Schweingruber, 2014 ; Johnson, Peters-Burton, & Moore, 2015 ; Kelley & Knowles, 2016 ; Li, 2018a ). These multiple perspectives allow scholars to publish articles in a vast array and diverse journals, as long as journals are willing to take the position as connected with STEM education. At the same time, however, the situation presents considerable challenges for researchers intending to locate, identify, and classify publications as STEM education research. To tackle such challenges, we tried to find out what we can learn from prior reviews related to STEM education.

Guidance from prior reviews related to STEM education

A search for reviews of STEM education research found multiple reviews that could suggest approaches for identifying publications (e.g., Brown, 2012 ; Henderson, Beach, & Finkelstein, 2011 ; Kim, Sinatra, & Seyranian, 2018 ; Margot & Kettler, 2019 ; Minichiello, Hood, & Harkness, 2018 ; Mizell & Brown, 2016 ; Thibaut et al., 2018 ; Wu & Rau, 2019 ). The review conducted by Brown ( 2012 ) examined the research base of STEM education. He addressed the complexity and ambiguity by confining the review with publications in eight journals, two in each individual discipline, one academic research journal (e.g., the Journal of Research in Science Teaching ) and one practitioner journal (e.g., Science Teacher ). Journals were selected based on suggestions from some faculty members and K-12 teachers. Out of 1100 articles published in these eight journals from January 1, 2007, to October 1, 2010, Brown located 60 articles that authors self-identified as connected to STEM education. He found that the vast majority of these 60 articles focused on issues beyond an individual discipline and there was a research base forming for STEM education. In a follow-up study, Mizell and Brown ( 2016 ) reviewed articles published from January 2013 to October 2015 in the same eight journals plus two additional journals. Mizell and Brown used the same criteria to identify and include articles that authors self-identified as connected to STEM education, i.e., if the authors included STEM in the title or author-supplied keywords. In comparison to Brown’s findings, they found that many more STEM articles were published in a shorter time period and by scholars from many more different academic institutions. Taking together, both Brown ( 2012 ) and Mizell and Brown ( 2016 ) tended to suggest that STEM education mainly consists of interdisciplinary or cross-disciplinary combinations of the individual STEM disciplines, but their approach consisted of selecting a limited number of individual discipline-based journals and then selecting articles that authors self-identified as connected to STEM education.

In contrast to reviews on STEM education, in general, other reviews focused on specific issues in STEM education (e.g., Henderson et al., 2011 ; Kim et al., 2018 ; Margot & Kettler, 2019 ; Minichiello et al., 2018 ; Schreffler, Vasquez III, Chini, & James, 2019 ; Thibaut et al., 2018 ; Wu & Rau, 2019 ). For example, the review by Henderson et al. ( 2011 ) focused on instructional change in undergraduate STEM courses based on 191 conceptual and empirical journal articles published between 1995 and 2008. Margot and Kettler ( 2019 ) focused on what is known about teachers’ values, beliefs, perceived barriers, and needed support related to STEM education based on 25 empirical journal articles published between 2000 and 2016. The focus of these reviews allowed the researchers to limit the number of articles considered, and they typically used keyword searches of selected databases to identify articles on STEM education. Some researchers used this approach to identify publications from journals only (e.g., Henderson et al., 2011 ; Margot & Kettler, 2019 ; Schreffler et al., 2019 ), and others selected and reviewed publications beyond journals (e.g., Minichiello et al., 2018 ; Thibaut et al., 2018 ; Wu & Rau, 2019 ).

The discussion in this section suggests possible reasons contributing to the absence of a general literature review of STEM education research and development: (1) diverse perspectives in existence about STEM and STEM education that contribute to the difficulty of specifying a scope of literature review, (2) its short but rapid development history in comparison to other discipline-based education (e.g., science education), and (3) difficulties in deciding how to establish the scope of the literature review. With respect to the third reason, prior reviews have used one of two approaches to identify and select articles: (a) identifying specific journals first and then searching and selecting specific articles from these journals (e.g., Brown, 2012 ; Erduran et al., 2015 ; Mizell & Brown, 2016 ) and (b) conducting selected database searches with keywords based on a specific focus (e.g., Margot & Kettler, 2019 ; Thibaut et al., 2018 ). However, neither the first approach of selecting a limited number of individual discipline-based journals nor the second approach of selecting a specific focus for the review leads to an approach that provides a general overview of STEM education scholarship development based on existing journal publications.

Current review

Two issues were identified in setting the scope for this review.

What time period should be considered?

What publications will be selected for review?

Time period

We start with the easy one first. As discussed above, the acronym STEM did exist until the early 2000s. Although the existence of the acronym does not generate scholarship on student learning in STEM disciplines, it is symbolic and helps focus attention to efforts in STEM education. Since we want to examine the status and trends in STEM education, it is reasonable to start with the year 2000. Then, we can use the acronym of STEM as an identifier in locating specific research articles in a way as done by others (e.g., Brown, 2012 ; Mizell & Brown, 2016 ). We chose the end of 2018 as the end of the time period for our review that began during 2019.

Focusing on publications beyond individual discipline-based journals

As mentioned before, scholars responded to the call for scholarship development in STEM education with publications that appeared in various outlets and diverse languages, including journals, books, and conference proceedings. However, journal publications are typically credited and valued as one of the most important outlets for research exchange (e.g., Erduran et al., 2015 ; Henderson et al., 2011 ; Lin et al., 2019 ; Xu et al., 2019 ). Thus, in this review, we will also focus on articles published in journals in English.

The discourse above on the complexity and ambiguity regarding STEM education suggests that scholars may publish their research in a wide range of journals beyond individual discipline-based journals. To search and select articles from a wide range of journals, we thought about the approach of searching selected databases with keywords as other scholars used in reviewing STEM education with a specific focus. However, existing journals in STEM education do not have a long history. In fact, IJ-STEM is the first journal in STEM education that has just been accepted into the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) (Li, 2019a ). Publications in many STEM education journals are practically not available in several important and popular databases, such as the Web of Science and Scopus. Moreover, some journals in STEM education were not normalized due to a journal’s name change or irregular publication schedule. For example, the Journal of STEM Education was named as Journal of SMET Education when it started in 2000 in a print format, and the journal’s name was not changed until 2003, Vol 4 (3 and 4), and also went fully on-line starting 2004 (Raju & Sankar, 2003 ). A simple Google Scholar search with keywords will not be able to provide accurate information, unless you visit the journal’s website to check all publications over the years. Those added complexities prevented us from taking the database search as a viable approach. Thus, we decided to identify journals first and then search and select articles from these journals. Further details about the approach are provided in the “ Method ” section.

Research questions

Given a broader range of journals and a longer period of time to be covered in this review, we can examine some of the same questions as the IJ-STEM review (Li, Froyd, & Wang, 2019 ), but we do not have access to data on readership, articles accessed, or articles cited for the other journals selected for this review. Specifically, we are interested in addressing the following six research questions:

What were the status and trends in STEM education research from 2000 to the end of 2018 based on journal publications?

What were the patterns of publications in STEM education research across different journals?

Which countries or regions, based on the countries or regions in which authors were located, contributed to journal publications in STEM education?

What were the patterns of single-author and multiple-author publications in STEM education?

What main topics had emerged in STEM education research based on the journal publications?

What research methods did authors tend to use in conducting STEM education research?

Based on the above discussion, we developed the methods for this literature review to follow careful sequential steps to identify journals first and then identify and select STEM education research articles published in these journals from January 2000 to the end of 2018. The methods should allow us to obtain a comprehensive overview about the status and trends of STEM education research based on a systematic analysis of related publications from a broad range of journals and over a longer period of time.

Identifying journals

We used the following three steps to search and identify journals for inclusion:

We assumed articles on research in STEM education have been published in journals that involve more than one traditional discipline. Thus, we used Google to search and identify all education journals with their titles containing either two, three, or all four disciplines of STEM. For example, we did Google search of all the different combinations of three areas of science, mathematics, technology Footnote 1 , and engineering as contained in a journal’s title. In addition, we also searched possible journals containing the word STEAM in the title.

Since STEM education may be viewed as encompassing discipline-based education research, articles on STEM education research may have been published in traditional discipline-based education journals, such as the Journal of Research in Science Teaching . However, there are too many such journals. Yale’s Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning has listed 16 journals that publish articles spanning across undergraduate STEM education disciplines (see https://poorvucenter.yale.edu/FacultyResources/STEMjournals ). Thus, we selected from the list some individual discipline-based education research journals, and also added a few more common ones such as the Journal of Engineering Education .

Since articles on research in STEM education have appeared in some general education research journals, especially those well-established ones. Thus, we identified and selected a few of those journals that we noticed some publications in STEM education research.

Following the above three steps, we identified 45 journals (see Table  1 ).

Identifying articles

In this review, we will not discuss or define the meaning of STEM education. We used the acronym STEM (or STEAM, or written as the phrase of “science, technology, engineering, and mathematics”) as a term in our search of publication titles and/or abstracts. To identify and select articles for review, we searched all items published in those 45 journals and selected only those articles that author(s) self-identified with the acronym STEM (or STEAM, or written as the phrase of “science, technology, engineering, and mathematics”) in the title and/or abstract. We excluded publications in the sections of practices, letters to editors, corrections, and (guest) editorials. Our search found 798 publications that authors self-identified as in STEM education, identified from 36 journals. The remaining 9 journals either did not have publications that met our search terms or published in another language other than English (see the two separate lists in Table 1 ).

Data analysis

To address research question 3, we analyzed authorship to examine which countries/regions contributed to STEM education research over the years. Because each publication may have either one or multiple authors, we used two different methods to analyze authorship nationality that have been recognized as valuable from our review of IJ-STEM publications (Li, Froyd, & Wang, 2019 ). The first method considers only the corresponding author’s (or the first author, if no specific indication is given about the corresponding author) nationality and his/her first institution affiliation, if multiple institution affiliations are listed. Method 2 considers every author of a publication, using the following formula (Howard, Cole, & Maxwell, 1987 ) to quantitatively assign and estimate each author’s contribution to a publication (and thus associated institution’s productivity), when multiple authors are included in a publication. As an example, each publication is given one credit point. For the publication co-authored by two, the first author would be given 0.6 and the second author 0.4 credit point. For an article contributed jointly by three authors, the three authors would be credited with scores of 0.47, 0.32, and 0.21, respectively.

After calculating all the scores for each author of each paper, we added all the credit scores together in terms of each author’s country/region. For brevity, we present only the top 10 countries/regions in terms of their total credit scores calculated using these two different methods, respectively.

To address research question 5, we used the same seven topic categories identified and used in our review of IJ-STEM publications (Li, Froyd, & Wang, 2019 ). We tested coding 100 articles first to ensure the feasibility. Through test-coding and discussions, we found seven topic categories could be used to examine and classify all 798 items.

K-12 teaching, teacher, and teacher education in STEM (including both pre-service and in-service teacher education)

Post-secondary teacher and teaching in STEM (including faculty development, etc.)

K-12 STEM learner, learning, and learning environment

Post-secondary STEM learner, learning, and learning environments (excluding pre-service teacher education)

Policy, curriculum, evaluation, and assessment in STEM (including literature review about a field in general)

Culture and social and gender issues in STEM education

History, epistemology, and perspectives about STEM and STEM education

To address research question 6, we coded all 798 publications in terms of (1) qualitative methods, (2) quantitative methods, (3) mixed methods, and (4) non-empirical studies (including theoretical or conceptual papers, and literature reviews). We assigned each publication to only one research topic and one method, following the process used in the IJ-STEM review (Li, Froyd, & Wang, 2019 ). When there was more than one topic or method that could have been used for a publication, a decision was made in choosing and assigning a topic or a method. The agreement between two coders for all 798 publications was 89.5%. When topic and method coding discrepancies occurred, a final decision was reached after discussion.

Results and discussion

In the following sections, we report findings as corresponding to each of the six research questions.

The status and trends of journal publications in STEM education research from 2000 to 2018

Figure  1 shows the number of publications per year. As Fig.  1 shows, the number of publications increased each year beginning in 2010. There are noticeable jumps from 2015 to 2016 and from 2017 to 2018. The result shows that research in STEM education had grown significantly since 2010, and the most recent large number of STEM education publications also suggests that STEM education research gained its own recognition by many different journals for publication as a hot and important topic area.

The distribution of STEM education publications over the years

Among the 798 articles, there were 549 articles with the word “STEM” (or STEAM, or written with the phrase of “science, technology, engineering, and mathematics”) included in the article’s title or both title and abstract and 249 articles without such identifiers included in the title but abstract only. The results suggest that many scholars tended to include STEM in the publications’ titles to highlight their research in or about STEM education. Figure  2 shows the number of publications per year where publications are distinguished depending on whether they used the term STEM in the title or only in the abstract. The number of publications in both categories had significant increases since 2010. Use of the acronym STEM in the title was growing at a faster rate than using the acronym only in the abstract.

The trends of STEM education publications with vs. without STEM included in the title

Not all the publications that used the acronym STEM in the title and/or abstract reported on a study involving all four STEM areas. For each publication, we further examined the number of the four areas involved in the reported study.

Figure  3 presents the number of publications categorized by the number of the four areas involved in the study, breaking down the distribution of these 798 publications in terms of the content scope being focused on. Studies involving all four STEM areas are the most numerous with 488 (61.2%) publications, followed by involving one area (141, 17.7%), then studies involving both STEM and non-STEM (84, 10.5%), and finally studies involving two or three areas of STEM (72, 9%; 13, 1.6%; respectively). Publications that used the acronym STEAM in either the title or abstract were classified as involving both STEM and non-STEM. For example, both of the following publications were included in this category.

Dika and D’Amico ( 2016 ). “Early experiences and integration in the persistence of first-generation college students in STEM and non-STEM majors.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 53 (3), 368–383. (Note: this article focused on early experience in both STEM and Non-STEM majors.)

Sochacka, Guyotte, and Walther ( 2016 ). “Learning together: A collaborative autoethnographic exploration of STEAM (STEM+ the Arts) education.” Journal of Engineering Education , 105 (1), 15–42. (Note: this article focused on STEAM (both STEM and Arts).)

Publication distribution in terms of content scope being focused on. (Note: 1=single subject of STEM, 2=two subjects of STEM, 3=three subjects of STEM, 4=four subjects of STEM, 5=topics related to both STEM and non-STEM)

Figure  4 presents the number of publications per year in each of the five categories described earlier (category 1, one area of STEM; category 2, two areas of STEM; category 3, three areas of STEM; category 4, four areas of STEM; category 5, STEM and non-STEM). The category that had grown most rapidly since 2010 is the one involving all four areas. Recent growth in the number of publications in category 1 likely reflected growing interest of traditional individual disciplinary based educators in developing and sharing multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary scholarship in STEM education, as what was noted recently by Li and Schoenfeld ( 2019 ) with publications in IJ-STEM.

Publication distribution in terms of content scope being focused on over the years

Patterns of publications across different journals

Among the 36 journals that published STEM education articles, two are general education research journals (referred to as “subject-0”), 12 with their titles containing one discipline of STEM (“subject-1”), eight with journal’s titles covering two disciplines of STEM (“subject-2”), six covering three disciplines of STEM (“subject-3”), seven containing the word STEM (“subject-4”), and one in STEAM education (“subject-5”).

Table  2 shows that both subject-0 and subject-1 journals were usually mature journals with a long history, and they were all traditional subscription-based journals, except the Journal of Pre - College Engineering Education Research , a subject-1 journal established in 2011 that provided open access (OA). In comparison to subject-0 and subject-1 journals, subject-2 and subject-3 journals were relatively newer but still had quite many years of history on average. There are also some more journals in these two categories that provided OA. Subject-4 and subject-5 journals had a short history, and most provided OA. The results show that well-established journals had tended to focus on individual disciplines or education research in general. Multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary education journals were started some years later, followed by the recent establishment of several STEM or STEAM journals.

Table 2 also shows that subject-1, subject-2, and subject-4 journals published approximately a quarter each of the publications. The number of publications in subject-1 journals is interested, because we selected a relatively limited number of journals in this category. There are many other journals in the subject-1 category (as well as subject-0 journals) that we did not select, and thus it is very likely that we did not include some STEM education articles published in subject-0 or subject-1 journals that we did not include in our study.

Figure  5 shows the number of publications per year in each of the five categories described earlier (subject-0 through subject-5). The number of publications per year in subject-5 and subject-0 journals did not change much over the time period of the study. On the other hand, the number of publications per year in subject-4 (all 4 areas), subject-1 (single area), and subject-2 journals were all over 40 by the end of the study period. The number of publications per year in subject-3 journals increased but remained less than 30. At first sight, it may be a bit surprising that the number of publications in STEM education per year in subject-1 journals increased much faster than those in subject-2 journals over the past few years. However, as Table 2 indicates these journals had long been established with great reputations, and scholars would like to publish their research in such journals. In contrast to the trend in subject-1 journals, the trend in subject-4 journals suggests that STEM education journals collectively started to gain its own identity for publishing and sharing STEM education research.

STEM education publication distribution across different journal categories over the years. (Note: 0=subject-0; 1=subject-1; 2=subject-2; 3=subject-3; 4=subject-4; 5=subject-5)

Figure  6 shows the number of STEM education publications in each journal where the bars are color-coded (yellow, subject-0; light blue, subject-1; green, subject-2; purple, subject-3; dark blue, subject-4; and black, subject-5). There is no clear pattern shown in terms of the overall number of STEM education publications across categories or journals, but very much individual journal-based performance. The result indicates that the number of STEM education publications might heavily rely on the individual journal’s willingness and capability of attracting STEM education research work and thus suggests the potential value of examining individual journal’s performance.

Publication distribution across all 36 individual journals across different categories with the same color-coded for journals in the same subject category

The top five journals in terms of the number of STEM education publications are Journal of Science Education and Technology (80 publications, journal number 25 in Fig.  6 ), Journal of STEM Education (65 publications, journal number 26), International Journal of STEM Education (64 publications, journal number 17), International Journal of Engineering Education (54 publications, journal number 12), and School Science and Mathematics (41 publications, journal number 31). Among these five journals, two journals are specifically on STEM education (J26, J17), two on two subjects of STEM (J25, J31), and one on one subject of STEM (J12).

Figure  7 shows the number of STEM education publications per year in each of these top five journals. As expected, based on earlier trends, the number of publications per year increased over the study period. The largest increase was in the International Journal of STEM Education (J17) that was established in 2014. As the other four journals were all established in or before 2000, J17’s short history further suggests its outstanding performance in attracting and publishing STEM education articles since 2014 (Li, 2018b ; Li, Froyd, & Wang, 2019 ). The increase was consistent with the journal’s recognition as the first STEM education journal for inclusion in SSCI starting in 2019 (Li, 2019a ).

Publication distribution of selected five journals over the years. (Note: J12: International Journal of Engineering Education; J17: International Journal of STEM Education; J25: Journal of Science Education and Technology; J26: Journal of STEM Education; J31: School Science and Mathematics)

Top 10 countries/regions where scholars contributed journal publications in STEM education

Table  3 shows top countries/regions in terms of the number of publications, where the country/region was established by the authorship using the two different methods presented above. About 75% (depending on the method) of contributions were made by authors from the USA, followed by Australia, Canada, Taiwan, and UK. Only Africa as a continent was not represented among the top 10 countries/regions. The results are relatively consistent with patterns reported in the IJ-STEM study (Li, Froyd, & Wang, 2019 )

Further examination of Table 3 reveals that the two methods provide not only fairly consistent results but also yield some differences. For example, Israel and Germany had more publication credit if only the corresponding author was considered, but South Korea and Turkey had more publication credit when co-authors were considered. The results in Table 3 show that each method has value when analyzing and comparing publications by country/region or institution based on authorship.

Recognizing that, as shown in Fig. 1 , the number of publications per year increased rapidly since 2010, Table  4 shows the number of publications by country/region over a 10-year period (2009–2018) and Table 5 shows the number of publications by country/region over a 5-year period (2014–2018). The ranks in Tables  3 , 4 , and 5 are fairly consistent, but that would be expected since the larger numbers of publications in STEM education had occurred in recent years. At the same time, it is interesting to note in Table 5 some changes over the recent several years with Malaysia, but not Israel, entering the top 10 list when either method was used to calculate author's credit.

Patterns of single-author and multiple-author publications in STEM education

Since STEM education differs from traditional individual disciplinary education, we are interested in determining how common joint co-authorship with collaborations was in STEM education articles. Figure  8 shows that joint co-authorship was very common among these 798 STEM education publications, with 83.7% publications with two or more co-authors. Publications with two, three, or at least five co-authors were highest, with 204, 181, and 157 publications, respectively.

Number of publications with single or different joint authorship. (Note: 1=single author; 2=two co-authors; 3=three co-authors; 4=four co-authors; 5=five or more co-authors)

Figure  9 shows the number of publications per year using the joint authorship categories in Fig.  8 . Each category shows an increase consistent with the increase shown in Fig. 1 for all 798 publications. By the end of the time period, the number of publications with two, three, or at least five co-authors was the largest, which might suggest an increase in collaborations in STEM education research.

Publication distribution with single or different joint authorship over the years. (Note: 1=single author; 2=two co-authors; 3=three co-authors; 4=four co-authors; 5=five or more co-authors)

Co-authors can be from the same or different countries/regions. Figure  10 shows the number of publications per year by single authors (no collaboration), co-authors from the same country (collaboration in a country/region), and co-authors from different countries (collaboration across countries/regions). Each year the largest number of publications was by co-authors from the same country, and the number increased dramatically during the period of the study. Although the number of publications in the other two categories increased, the numbers of publications were noticeably fewer than the number of publications by co-authors from the same country.

Publication distribution in authorship across different categories in terms of collaboration over the years

Published articles by research topics

Figure  11 shows the number of publications in each of the seven topic categories. The topic category of goals, policy, curriculum, evaluation, and assessment had almost half of publications (375, 47%). Literature reviews were included in this topic category, as providing an overview assessment of education and research development in a topic area or a field. Sample publications included in this category are listed as follows:

DeCoito ( 2016 ). “STEM education in Canada: A knowledge synthesis.” Canadian Journal of Science , Mathematics and Technology Education , 16 (2), 114–128. (Note: this article provides a national overview of STEM initiatives and programs, including success, criteria for effective programs and current research in STEM education.)

Ring-Whalen, Dare, Roehrig, Titu, and Crotty ( 2018 ). “From conception to curricula: The role of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in integrated STEM units.” International Journal of Education in Mathematics Science and Technology , 6 (4), 343–362. (Note: this article investigates the conceptions of integrated STEM education held by in-service science teachers through the use of photo-elicitation interviews and examines how those conceptions were reflected in teacher-created integrated STEM curricula.)

Schwab et al. ( 2018 ). “A summer STEM outreach program run by graduate students: Successes, challenges, and recommendations for implementation.” Journal of Research in STEM Education , 4 (2), 117–129. (Note: the article details the organization and scope of the Foundation in Science and Mathematics Program and evaluates this program.)

Frequencies of publications’ research topic distributions. (Note: 1=K-12 teaching, teacher and teacher education; 2=Post-secondary teacher and teaching; 3=K-12 STEM learner, learning, and learning environment; 4=Post-secondary STEM learner, learning, and learning environments; 5=Goals and policy, curriculum, evaluation, and assessment (including literature review); 6=Culture, social, and gender issues; 7=History, philosophy, Epistemology, and nature of STEM and STEM education)

The topic with the second most publications was “K-12 teaching, teacher and teacher education” (103, 12.9%), followed closely by “K-12 learner, learning, and learning environment” (97, 12.2%). The results likely suggest the research community had a broad interest in both teaching and learning in K-12 STEM education. The top three topics were the same in the IJ-STEM review (Li, Froyd, & Wang, 2019 ).

Figure  11 also shows there was a virtual tie between two topics with the fourth most cumulative publications, “post-secondary STEM learner & learning” (76, 9.5%) and “culture, social, and gender issues in STEM” (78, 9.8%), such as STEM identity, students’ career choices in STEM, and inclusion. This result is different from the IJ-STEM review (Li, Froyd, & Wang, 2019 ), where “post-secondary STEM teacher & teaching” and “post-secondary STEM learner & learning” were tied as the fourth most common topics. This difference is likely due to the scope of journals and the length of the time period being reviewed.

Figure  12 shows the number of publications per year in each topic category. As expected from the results in Fig.  11 the number of publications in topic category 5 (goals, policy, curriculum, evaluation, and assessment) was the largest each year. The numbers of publications in topic category 3 (K-12 learner, learning, and learning environment), 1 (K-12 teaching, teacher, and teacher education), 6 (culture, social, and gender issues in STEM), and 4 (post-secondary STEM learner and learning) were also increasing. Although Fig.  11 shows the number of publications in topic category 1 was slightly more than the number of publications in topic category 3 (see Fig.  11 ), the number of publications in topic category 3 was increasing more rapidly in recent years than its counterpart in topic category 1. This may suggest a more rapidly growing interest in K-12 STEM learner, learning, and learning environment. The numbers of publications in topic categories 2 and 7 were not increasing, but the number of publications in IJ-STEM in topic category 2 was notable (Li, Froyd, & Wang, 2019 ). It will be interesting to follow trends in the seven topic categories in the future.

Publication distributions in terms of research topics over the years

Published articles by research methods

Figure  13 shows the number of publications per year by research methods in empirical studies. Publications with non-empirical studies are shown in a separate category. Although the number of publications in each of the four categories increased during the study period, there were many more publications presenting empirical studies than those without. For those with empirical studies, the number of publications using quantitative methods increased most rapidly in recent years, followed by qualitative and then mixed methods. Although there were quite many publications with non-empirical studies (e.g., theoretical or conceptual papers, literature reviews) during the study period, the increase of the number of publications in this category was noticeably less than empirical studies.

Publication distributions in terms of research methods over the years. (Note: 1=qualitative, 2=quantitative, 3=mixed, 4=Non-empirical)

Concluding remarks

The systematic analysis of publications that were considered to be in STEM education in 36 selected journals shows tremendous growth in scholarship in this field from 2000 to 2018, especially over the past 10 years. Our analysis indicates that STEM education research has been increasingly recognized as an important topic area and studies were being published across many different journals. Scholars still hold diverse perspectives about how research is designated as STEM education; however, authors have been increasingly distinguishing their articles with STEM, STEAM, or related words in the titles, abstracts, and lists of keywords during the past 10 years. Moreover, our systematic analysis shows a dramatic increase in the number of publications in STEM education journals in recent years, which indicates that these journals have been collectively developing their own professional identity. In addition, the International Journal of STEM Education has become the first STEM education journal to be accepted in SSCI in 2019 (Li, 2019a ). The achievement may mark an important milestone as STEM education journals develop their own identity for publishing and sharing STEM education research.

Consistent with our previous reviews (Li, Froyd, & Wang, 2019 ; Li, Wang, & Xiao, 2019 ), the vast majority of publications in STEM education research were contributed by authors from the USA, where STEM and STEAM education originated, followed by Australia, Canada, and Taiwan. At the same time, authors in some countries/regions in Asia were becoming very active in the field over the past several years. This trend is consistent with findings from the IJ-STEM review (Li, Froyd, & Wang, 2019 ). We certainly hope that STEM education scholarship continues its development across all five continents to support educational initiatives and programs in STEM worldwide.

Our analysis has shown that collaboration, as indicated by publications with multiple authors, has been very common among STEM education scholars, as that is often how STEM education distinguishes itself from the traditional individual disciplinary based education. Currently, most collaborations occurred among authors from the same country/region, although collaborations across cross-countries/regions were slowly increasing.

With the rapid changes in STEM education internationally (Li, 2019b ), it is often difficult for researchers to get an overall sense about possible hot topics in STEM education especially when STEM education publications appeared in a vast array of journals across different fields. Our systematic analysis of publications has shown that studies in the topic category of goals, policy, curriculum, evaluation, and assessment have been the most prevalent, by far. Our analysis also suggests that the research community had a broad interest in both teaching and learning in K-12 STEM education. These top three topic categories are the same as in the IJ-STEM review (Li, Froyd, & Wang, 2019 ). Work in STEM education will continue to evolve and it will be interesting to review the trends in another 5 years.

Encouraged by our recent IJ-STEM review, we began this review with an ambitious goal to provide an overview of the status and trends of STEM education research. In a way, this systematic review allowed us to achieve our initial goal with a larger scope of journal selection over a much longer period of publication time. At the same time, there are still limitations, such as the decision to limit the number of journals from which we would identify publications for analysis. We understand that there are many publications on STEM education research that were not included in our review. Also, we only identified publications in journals. Although this is one of the most important outlets for scholars to share their research work, future reviews could examine publications on STEM education research in other venues such as books, conference proceedings, and grant proposals.

Availability of data and materials

The data and materials used and analyzed for the report are publicly available at the various journal websites.

Journals containing the word "computers" or "ICT" appeared automatically when searching with the word "technology". Thus, the word of "computers" or "ICT" was taken as equivalent to "technology" if appeared in a journal's name.

Abbreviations

Information and Communications Technology

International Journal of STEM Education

Kindergarten–Grade 12

Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology

Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

Borrego, M., Foster, M. J., & Froyd, J. E. (2015). What is the state of the art of systematic review in engineering education? Journal of Engineering Education, 104 (2), 212–242. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20069 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Bray, A., & Tangney, B. (2017). Technology usage in mathematics education research – a systematic review of recent trends. Computers & Education, 114 , 255–273.

Brown, J. (2012). The current status of STEM education research. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 13 (5), 7–11.

Google Scholar  

Christenson, J. (2011). Ramaley coined STEM term now used nationwide . Winona Daily News Retrieved from http://www.winonadailynews.com/news/local/article_457afe3e-0db3-11e1-abe0-001cc4c03286.html Accessed on 16 Jan 2018.

Chute, E. (2009). STEM education is branching out . Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Feb 9, 2009. https://www.post-gazette.com/news/education/2009/02/10/STEM-education-is-branching-out/stories/200902100165 Accessed on 2 Jan 2020.

DeCoito, I. (2016). STEM education in Canada: A knowledge synthesis. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 16 (2), 114–128.

Dika, S. L., & D'Amico, M. M. (2016). Early experiences and integration in the persistence of first-generation college students in STEM and non-STEM majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53 (3), 368–383.

English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3 , 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s4059%204-016-0036-1 .

Erduran, S., Ozdem, Y., & Park, J.-Y. (2015). Research trends on argumentation in science education: A journal content analysis from 1998-2014. International Journal of STEM Education, 2 , 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0020-1 .

Gonzalez, H. B. & Kuenzi, J. J. (2012). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: A primer. CRS report for congress, R42642, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42642.pdf Accessed on 2 Jan 2020.

Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48 (8), 952–984.

Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, A. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research . Washington: National Academies Press.

Howard, G. S., Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (1987). Research productivity in psychology based on publication in the journals of the American Psychological Association. American Psychologist, 42 (11), 975–986.

Johnson, C. C., Peters-Burton, E. E., & Moore, T. J. (2015). STEM roadmap: A framework for integration . London: Taylor & Francis.

Book   Google Scholar  

Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3 , 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z .

Kilpatrick, J. (1992). A history of research in mathematics education. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 3–38). New York: Macmillan.

Kim, A. Y., Sinatra, G. M., & Seyranian, V. (2018). Developing a STEM identity among young women: A social identity perspective. Review of Educational Research, 88 (4), 589–625.

Li, Y. (2014). International journal of STEM education – a platform to promote STEM education and research worldwide. International Journal of STEM Education, 1 , 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2196-7822-1-1 .

Li, Y. (2018a). Journal for STEM education research – promoting the development of interdisciplinary research in STEM education. Journal for STEM Education Research, 1 (1–2), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-018-0009-z .

Li, Y. (2018b). Four years of development as a gathering place for international researchers and readers in STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 5 , 54. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0153-0 .

Li, Y. (2019a). Five years of development in pursuing excellence in quality and global impact to become the first journal in STEM education covered in SSCI. International Journal of STEM Education, 6 , 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0198-8 .

Li, Y. (2019b). STEM education research and development as a rapidly evolving and international field. 数学教育学报(Journal of Mathematics Education), 28 (3), 42–44.

Li, Y., Froyd, J. E., & Wang, K. (2019). Learning about research and readership development in STEM education: A systematic analysis of the journal’s publications from 2014 to 2018. International Journal of STEM Education, 6 , 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0176-1 .

Li, Y., & Schoenfeld, A. H. (2019). Problematizing teaching and learning mathematics as ‘given’ in STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 6 , 44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0197-9 .

Li, Y., Wang, K., & Xiao, Y. (2019). Exploring the status and development trends of STEM education research: A review of research articles in selected journals published between 2000 and 2018. 数学教育学报(Journal of Mathematics Education), 28 (3), 45–52.

Lin, T.-J., Lin, T.-C., Potvin, P., & Tsai, C.-C. (2019). Research trends in science education from 2013 to 2017: A systematic content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 41 (3), 367–387.

Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6 , 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0151-2 .

Minichiello, A., Hood, J. R., & Harkness, D. S. (2018). Bring user experience design to bear on STEM education: A narrative literature review. Journal for STEM Education Research, 1 (1–2), 7–33.

Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction – what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 (4), 474–496.

Mizell, S., & Brown, S. (2016). The current status of STEM education research 2013-2015. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 17 (4), 52–56.

National Research Council. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering . Washington DC: National Academies Press.

National Science Foundation (1998). Information technology: Its impact on undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. (NSF 98–82), April 18–20, 1996. http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?nsf9882 Accessed 16 Jan 2018.

Raju, P. K., & Sankar, C. S. (2003). Editorial. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 4 (3&4), 2.

Ring-Whalen, E., Dare, E., Roehrig, G., Titu, P., & Crotty, E. (2018). From conception to curricula: The role of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in integrated STEM units. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 6 (4), 343–362.

Schreffler, J., Vasquez III, E., Chini, J., & James, W. (2019). Universal design for learning in postsecondary STEM education for students with disabilities: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6 , 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0161-8 .

Schwab, D. B., Cole, L. W., Desai, K. M., Hemann, J., Hummels, K. R., & Maltese, A. V. (2018). A summer STEM outreach program run by graduate students: Successes, challenges, and recommendations for implementation. Journal of Research in STEM Education, 4 (2), 117–129.

Sochacka, N. W., Guyotte, K. W., & Walther, J. (2016). Learning together: A collaborative autoethnographic exploration of STEAM (STEM+ the Arts) education. Journal of Engineering Education, 105 (1), 15–42.

Sokolowski, A., Li, Y., & Willson, V. (2015). The effects of using exploratory computerized environments in grades 1 to 8 mathematics: A meta-analysis of research. International Journal of STEM Education, 2 , 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0022-z .

Thibaut, L., Ceuppens, S., De Loof, H., De Meester, J., Goovaerts, L., Struyf, A., Pauw, J. B., Dehaene, W., Deprez, J., De Cock, M., Hellinckx, L., Knipprath, H., Langie, G., Struyven, K., Van de Velde, D., Van Petegem, P., & Depaepe, F. (2018). Integrated STEM education: A systematic review of instructional practices in secondary education. European Journal of STEM Education, 3 (1), 2.

Tsai, C. C., & Wen, L. M. C. (2005). Research and trends in science education from 1998 to 2002: A content analysis of publication in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 27 (1), 3–14.

United States Congress House Committee on Science. (1998). The state of science, math, engineering, and technology (SMET) education in America, parts I-IV, including the results of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS): hearings before the Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Fifth Congress, first session, July 23, September 24, October 8 and 29, 1997. Washington: U.S. G.P.O.

Vasquez, J., Sneider, C., & Comer, M. (2013). STEM lesson essentials, grades 3–8: Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics . Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Wu, S. P. W., & Rau, M. A. (2019). How students learn content in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) through drawing activities. Educational Psychology Review . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09467-3 .

Xu, M., Williams, P. J., Gu, J., & Zhang, H. (2019). Hotspots and trends of technology education in the International Journal of Technology and Design Education: 2000-2018. International Journal of Technology and Design Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09508-6 .

Download references

Not applicable

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843-4232, USA

Yeping Li & Yu Xiao

Nicholls State University, Thibodaux, LA, 70310, USA

Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA

Jeffrey E. Froyd

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

YL conceptualized the study and drafted the manuscript. KW and YX contributed with data collection, coding, and analyses. JEF reviewed drafts and contributed to manuscript revisions. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yeping Li .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Li, Y., Wang, K., Xiao, Y. et al. Research and trends in STEM education: a systematic review of journal publications. IJ STEM Ed 7 , 11 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00207-6

Download citation

Received : 10 February 2020

Accepted : 12 February 2020

Published : 10 March 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00207-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Journal publication
• Literature review
• STEM education research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

How the Science of Reading Informs 21st‐Century Education

The science of reading should be informed by an evolving evidence base built upon the scientific method. Decades of basic research and randomized controlled trials of interventions and instructional routines have formed a substantial evidence base to guide best practices in reading instruction, reading intervention, and the early identification of at-risk readers. The recent resurfacing of questions about what constitutes the science of reading is leading to misinformation in the public space that may be viewed by educational stakeholders as merely differences of opinion among scientists. Our goals in this paper are to revisit the science of reading through an epistemological lens to clarify what constitutes evidence in the science of reading and to offer a critical evaluation of the evidence provided by the science of reading. To this end, we summarize those things that we believe have compelling evidence, promising evidence, or a lack of compelling evidence. We conclude with a discussion of areas of focus that we believe will advance the science of reading to meet the needs of all children in the 21st century.

For more than 100 years, the question of how best to teach children to read has been debated in what has been termed the “reading wars”. The debate cyclically fades into the background only to reemerge, often with the same points of conflict. We believe that this cycle is not helpful for promoting the best outcomes for children’s educational success. Our goal in this paper is to make an honest and critical appraisal of the science of reading, defining what it is, how we build a case for evidence, summarizing those things for which the science of reading has provided unequivocal answers, providing a discussion of things we do not know but that may have been “oversold,” identifying areas for which evidence is promising but not yet compelling, and thinking ahead about how the science of reading can better serve all stakeholders in children’s educational achievements.

At its core, scientific inquiry is the same in all fields. Scientific research, whether in education, physics, anthropology, molecular biology, or economics, is a continual process of rigorous reasoning supported by a dynamic interplay among methods, theories, and findings. It builds understandings in the form of models or theories that can be tested. Advances in scientific knowledge are achieved by the self-regulating norms of the scientific community over time, not, as sometimes believed, by the mechanistic application of a particular scientific method to a static set of questions (National Research Council, 2002, p. 2).

What is the Science of Reading and Why are we Still Debating it?

The “science of reading” is a phrase representing the accumulated knowledge about reading, reading development, and best practices for reading instruction obtained by the use of the scientific method. We recognize that the accrual of scientific knowledge related to reading is ever evolving, at times circuitous, and not without controversy. Nonetheless, the knowledge base on the science of reading is vast. In the last decade alone, over 14,000 peer-reviewed articles have been published in journals that included the keyword “reading” based on a PsycINFO search. Although many of these studies likely focused on a sliver of the reading process individually, collectively, research studies with a focus on reading have yielded a substantial knowledge base of stable findings based on the science of reading. Taken together, the science of reading helps a diverse set of educational shareholders across institutions (e.g., preschools, schools, universities), communities, and families to make informed choices about how to effectively promote literacy skills that foster healthy and productive lives ( DeWalt & Hink, 2009 ; Rayner et al., 2001 ).

An interesting question concerning the science of reading is “Why is there a debate surrounding the science of reading?” Although there are certainly disputes within the scientific community regarding best practices and new areas of research inquiry, most of the current debate seems to settle upon what constitutes scientific evidence, how much value we should place on scientific evidence as opposed to other forms of knowledge, and how preservice teachers should be instructed to teach reading ( Brady, 2020 ). The current disagreement in what constitutes the scientific evidence of reading (e.g., Calkins, 2020 ) is not new. During the last round of the “reading wars” in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s these same issues were discussed and debated. Much of the debate focused on conflicting views in epistemology between constructivists and positivists on the basic mechanisms associated with reading development. Constructivists, such as Goodman (1967) and Smith (1971) , believed that reading was a “natural act” akin to learning language and thus emphasized giving children the opportunity to discover meaning through experiences in a literacy-rich environment. In contrast, positivists, such as Chall (1967) and Flesch (1955) , made strong distinctions between innate language learning and the effortful learning required to acquire reading skills. Positivists argued for explicit instruction to help foster understanding of how the written code mapped onto language, whereas constructivists encouraged children to engage in a “psycholinguistic guessing game” in which readers use their graphic, semantic, and syntactic knowledge (known as the three cuing system) to guess the meaning of a printed word.

Research clearly indicates that skilled reading involves the consolidation of orthographic and phonological word forms ( Dehene, 2011 ). Work in cognitive neuroscience indicates that a small region of the left ventral visual cortex becomes specialized for this purpose. As children learn to read, they recruit neurons from a small region of the left ventral visual cortex within the left occipitotemporal cortex region (i.e., visual word form area) that are tuned to language-dependent parameters through connectivity to perisylvian language areas ( Dehaene-Lambertz et al., 2018 ). This provides an efficient circuit for grapheme-phoneme conversion and lexical access allowing efficient word-reading skills to develop. These studies provide direct evidence for how teaching alters the human brain by repurposing some visual regions toward the shapes of letters, suggesting that cultural inventions, such as written language, modify evolutionarily older brain regions. Furthermore, studies suggest that instruction focusing on the link between orthography and phonology promote this brain reorganization (e.g., Dehaene, 2011 ). Yet, arguments between philosophical constructivists and philosophical positivists on what constitutes the science of reading and how it informs instruction remain active today (e.g., Castles et al., 2018 ). In a recent interview with Emily Hanford, Ken Goodman defended his advocacy for the three cuing system saying that the three-cueing theory is based on years of observational research. In his view, three cueing is perfectly valid, drawn from a different kind of evidence than what scientists collect in their lab and later he stated that “my science is different” ( Hanford, 2019 ).

As scientists at the Florida Center for Reading Research, we are often frustrated when what we view to be the empirically supported evidence base about the reading process are distorted or denied in communications directed to the public and to teachers. However, Stanovich (2003) posited that “in many cases, the facts are secondary—what is being denied are the styles of reasoning that gave rise to the facts; what is being denied is closer to a worldview than an empirical finding. Many of these styles are implicit; we are not conscious of them as explicit rules of behavior” (pp. 106-107). Stanovich proposed five different dimensions that represent “styles” of generating knowledge about reading. For our purposes, here, we focus on the first dimension: the correspondence versus coherence theory of truth. It hits at the heart of how people believe something to be true. People who believe that a real world exists independent of their beliefs, and that interrogating this world using rigorous principles to gain knowledge is a fruitful activity are said to subscribe to the correspondence theory of truth. In contrast, those who subscribe to the coherence theory of truth believe that something is “true” if the beliefs about something fit together in a logical way. In essence, something is true if it makes sense.

Stanovich believed these differing truth systems might lie at the heart of the disagreements surrounding the science of reading. One side shouting, “Look at this mountain of evidence! How can you not believe it?” and the other side shouting, “It doesn’t make sense! It doesn’t match up with our experiences! Why should we value your knowledge above our own?!” By approaching the science of reading from the perspective of the correspondence theory of truth, we consider how compelling evidence can be generated, what we believe is the compelling evidence, what we think lacks evidence, and what we think is promising evidence.

How We Build a Case for Compelling Evidence

Research is the means by which we acquire and understand knowledge about the world ( Dane, 1990 ) to create scientific principles. Relatively few scientists would argue with the importance of using research evidence to support a principle or to make claims about reading development and the quality of reading instruction. Where significant divergence often occurs is in response to policy statements that categorize research claims and instructional strategies into those with greater or lesser levels of evidence. This divergence is typically rooted in applied epistemology, which can be understood as the study of whether the means by which we study evidence are themselves well designed to lead to valid conclusions. Researchers often frame the science of reading from divergent applied epistemological perspectives. Thus, two scientists who approach the science of reading with different epistemologies will both suggest that they have principled understandings and explanations for how children learn to read; yet, the means by which those understandings and explanations were derived are often distinct.

The correspondence and coherence theories of truth described above are examples of explanations from contrasting epistemological perspectives. Consistent with these perspectives, researchers approaching the science of reading using a correspondence theory typically prioritize deductive methods, which embed hypothesis testing, precise operationalization of constructs, and efforts to decouple the researchers’ beliefs from their interpretation and generalization of empirical evidence. Researchers approaching the science of reading using a coherence theory of truth typically prioritize more inductive methods, such as phenomenological, ethnographic, and grounded theory approaches that embed focus on the meaning and understanding that comes through a person’s lived experience and where the scientist’s own observations shape meaning and principles (e.g., Israel & Duffy, 2014 ).

When the National Research Council published Scientific Research in Education (2002), a significant amount of criticism levied against the report boiled down to differences in epistemological perspectives. Yet, these genuine contrasts can often obscure contributions to the science of reading that derive from multiple applied epistemologies. Observational research, using both inductive (e.g., case studies) and deductive (e.g., correlational studies) approaches, substantively informs the development of theories and of novel instructional approaches (e.g., Scruggs et al., 2007 ). Public health research offers a useful parallel. As it would be unethical to establish a causal link from smoking cigarettes to lung cancer through a randomized controlled trial, that field instead used well-designed observational studies to derive claims and principles. These findings then informed later stages in the broader program of research, including randomized controlled trials of interventions for smoking cessation.

In the science of reading, principles and instructional strategies should indeed capitalize on a program of research inclusive of multiple methodologies. Yet, as the public health domain ultimately takes direction from the efficacy of smoking cessation programs, so too must the science of reading take direction from theoretically informed and well-designed experimental and quasi-experimental studies of promising strategies when the intention is to evaluate instructional practices. The use of experimental (i.e., randomized trials) and quasi-experimental (e.g., regression discontinuity, propensity score matching, interrupted time series) designs, in which an intervention is competed against counterfactual conditions, such as typical practice or alternative interventions, provides the strongest causal credibility regarding which instructional strategies are effective. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) of the Institute of Education Sciences (e.g., What Works Clearinghouse, 2020) and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015 ) are efforts by the US Department of Education to hierarchically characterize the levels of evidence currently available for instructional practices in education. The WWC uses a review framework, developed by methodological and statistical experts, for evaluating the quality and scope of evidence for specific instructional practices based on features of the design, implementation, and analysis of studies. Similarly, ESSA uses four tiers that focus on both the design of the study and the results of the study in which the tiers differ based on the quantity of evidence and quality of evidence supporting an approach. For both WWC and ESSA, quantity of evidence refers to the number of well-designed and well-implemented studies, and quality of evidence is defined by the ability of a study’s methods to allow for alternative explanations of a finding to be ruled out, for which the randomized controlled trial provides the strongest method.

As outlined above, the “science of reading” utilizes multiple research approaches to generate ideas about reading. Ultimately, the highest priority in the science of reading should be the replicable and generalizable knowledge from observational and experimental methods, rooted in a deductive research approach to knowledge generation that is framed in a correspondence theory of truth. In this manner, the accumulated evidence is built on a research foundation by which theories, principles, and hypotheses have been subjected to rigorous empirical scrutiny to determine the degree to which they hold up across variations in samples, measures, and contexts. In the following sections, we summarize issues related to the nature, development, and instruction of reading for which we believe the science of reading either has or has not yielded compelling evidence, identify what we believe are promising areas for which sufficient evidence has not yet accumulated, and suggest a number of areas that we believe will help move the science of reading forward, increasing knowledge and enhancing its positive impacts for a variety of stakeholders.

Compelling Evidence in the Science of Reading

In this section, we focus on a number of findings centrally important for understanding the development and teaching of reading in alphabetic languages. The evidence base provides answers varying across orthographic regularity (e.g., English vs. Spanish), reading subskill (i.e., decoding vs. comprehension), grade range or developmental level (e.g., early childhood, elementary, adolescence), and linguistic diversity (e.g., English language learners, dialect speakers).

There are large differences among alphabetic languages in the rules for how graphemes represent sounds in words (i.e., a language’s orthography). In languages like Spanish and Finnish there is a near one-to-one relation between letters and sounds. The letter-sound coding in these languages is transparent, and they have shallow orthographies. In other languages, most notably English, there is often not a one-to-one relation between letters and sounds. The letter-sound coding in these languages is opaque, and they have deep orthographies. Children must learn which words cannot be decoded based solely on letter-sound correspondence (e.g., two, knight, laugh) and learn to match these irregular spellings to the words they represent. Where a language’s orthography falls on the shallow-deep dimension affects how quickly children develop accurate and fluent word-reading skills ( Ellis et al., 2004 ; Ziegler & Goswami, 2005 ) and how much instruction on foundational reading skills is likely needed. Studies indicate that children learning to read in English are slower to acquire decoding skills (e.g., Caravolas et al., 2013 ). Ziegler et al. (1997) reported that 69% of monosyllabic words in English were consistent in spelling-to-phonology mappings and 31% of the phonology-to-spelling mappings were consistent. Thus, in teaching children to read in English, the “grain size” of phoneme, onset-rime, and whole word matters ( Ziegler & Goswami, 2005 ) and the preservation of morphological regularities in English spelling matters (e.g., vine vs. vineyard ).

Gough and Tunmer’s (1986) “simple view of reading” model, which is supported by a significant amount of research, provides a useful framework for conceptualizing the development of reading skills across time. It also frames the elements for which it is necessary to provide instructional support. The ultimate goal of reading is to extract and construct meaning from text for a purpose. For this task to be successful, however, the reader needs skills in both word decoding and linguistic comprehension. Weaknesses in either area will reduce the capacity to achieve the goal of reading. Decoding skills and linguistic comprehension make independent contributions to the prediction of reading comprehension across diverse populations of readers ( Kershaw & Schatschneider, 2012 ; Sabatini et al., 2010 ; Vellutino, et al., 2007 ). Results of several studies employing measurement strategies that allow modeling of each component as a latent variable indicate that decoding and linguistic comprehension account for almost all of the variance in reading comprehension (e.g., Foorman et al., 2015 ; Lonigan et al., 2018 ). The relative influence of these skill domains, however, changes across development. The importance of decoding skill in explaining variance in reading comprehension decreases across grades whereas the importance of linguistic comprehension increases (e.g., Catts et al., 2005 ; Foorman et al., 2018 ; García & Cain, 2014 ; Lonigan et al., 2018 ). By the time children are in high school linguistic comprehension and reading comprehension essentially form a single dimension (e.g., Foorman et al., 2018 ).

Children’s knowledge of the alphabetic principle (i.e., how letters and sounds connect) and knowledge of the morphophonemic nature of English are necessary to create the high-quality lexical representations essential to accurate and efficient decoding ( Ehri, 2005 ; Perfetti, 2007 ). Acquiring the alphabetic principle is dependent on understanding that words are composed of smaller sounds (i.e., phonological awareness, PA) and alphabet knowledge (AK). Both PA and AK are substantial correlates and predictors of decoding skills (e.g., Wagner & Torgesen, 1987 ; Wagner et al., 1994 ). Prior to formal reading instruction, children are developing PA and AK as well as other early literacy skills that are related to later decoding skills following formal reading instruction ( Lonigan et al., 2009 ; Lonigan et al., 1998 ; National Early Literacy Panel [NELP], 2008 ; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998 ). Reading comprehension takes advantage of the reader’s ability to understand language. In most languages, written language and spoken language have high levels of overlap in their basic structure. Longitudinal studies indicate that linguistic comprehension skills from early childhood predict reading comprehension at the end of elementary school ( Catts et al., 2015 ; Language and Reading Research Consortium & Chiu, 2018 ; Mancilla-Martinez & Lesaux, 2010 ; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002 ; Verhoeven & Van Leeuwe, 2008 ). The developmental precursors to skilled reading are present prior to school entry. Consequently, differences between children in the development of these skills forecast later differences in reading skills and are useful for identifying children at risk for reading difficulties.

The science of reading provides numerous clear answers about the type and focus of reading instruction for the subskills of reading, depending on where children are on the continuum of reading development and children’s linguistic backgrounds. Much of this knowledge is summarized in the practice guides produced by the Institute of Education Sciences ( Baker et al., 2014 ; Foorman et al., 2016a ; Gersten et al., 2007 , 2008 ; Kamil et al., 2008 ; Shanahan et al., 2010 ) and in meta-analytic summaries of research (e.g., Berkeley et al., 2012 ; Ehri, Nunes, Stahl et al., 2001 ; Ehri, Nunes, Willows et al., 2001 ; NELP, 2008 ; Therrien, 2004 ; Wanzek et al., 2013 , 2016 ). Whereas the practice guides list several best practices, here we emphasize those practices classified as supported by strong or moderate evidence based on WWC standards.

Since the publication of the Report of the National Reading Panel ( National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000 ) and supported by subsequent research (e.g., Gersten et al., 2017a ; Foorman et al., 2016a ), it is clear that a large evidence base provides strong support for the explicit and systematic instruction of the component and foundational skills of decoding and decoding itself. That is, teaching children phonological awareness and letter knowledge, particularly when combined, results in improved word-decoding skills. Teaching children to decode words using systematic and explicit phonics instruction results in improved word-decoding skills. Such instruction is effective both for monolingual English-speaking children and children whose home language is other than English (i.e., dual-language learners; Baker et al., 2014 ; Gersten et al., 2007 ) as well as children who are having difficulties learning to read or who have an identified reading disability ( Ehri, Nunes, Stahl et al., 2001 ; Gersten et al., 2008 ). Additionally, providing children with frequent opportunities to read connected text supports the development of word-reading accuracy and fluency as well as comprehension skills ( Foorman et al., 2016a ; Therrien, 2004 ).

Similarly, a number of instructional activities to promote the development of reading comprehension have strong or moderate supporting evidence. For younger children, teaching children how to use comprehension strategies and how to utilize the organizational structure of a text to understand, learn, and retain content supports better reading comprehension ( Shanahan et al., 2010 ). For older children, teaching the use of comprehension strategies also enhances reading comprehension ( Kamil et al., 2008 ) as does explicit instruction in key vocabulary, providing opportunities for extended discussion of texts, and providing instruction on foundational reading skills when children lack these skills; such instructional approaches are also effective for children with significant reading difficulties ( Berkeley et al., 2012 ; Kamil et al., 2008 ).

Lack of Compelling Evidence in the Science of Reading

In the above section, practices were highlighted that have sufficient evidence to warrant their widespread use. In this section, we address reading practices for which there is a lack of compelling evidence. Some practices have simply not yet been scientifically evaluated. Other practices have been evaluated, but either the evidence does not support their use based on the generalizability of the results or the studies in which they were evaluated were not of sufficient quality to meet a minimal standard of evidence (e.g., WWC standards). Although we lack sufficient space to present a comprehensive list of practices that do not have compelling evidence, we provide examples of practices that are commonplace and vary in the degree to which they have been scientifically studied.

Evidence-based decision making regarding effective literacy programs and practices for classroom use can be difficult. Often, there is no evidence of effectiveness for a program or the evidence is of poor quality. For instance, of the five most popular reading programs used nationwide (i.e., Units of Study for Teaching Reading, Journeys, Into Reading, Leveled Literacy Intervention and Reading Recovery; Schwartz, 1999) only Leveled Literacy Intervention and Reading Recovery, both interventions for struggling readers, have studies that meet WWC standards. The evidence indicates that there were mixed effects across outcomes for Leveled Literacy Intervention and positive or potentially positive effects for Reading Recovery (e.g., Chapman & Tunmer, 2016 ). Classroom reading programs are typically built around the notion of evidence-informed practices – teaching approaches that are grounded in quality research – but have not been subjected to direct scientific evaluation. As a consequence, it is currently impossible for schools to select basal reading programs that adhere to strict evidence-based standards (e.g., ESSA, 2015 ). As an alternative, schools must develop selection criteria for choosing classroom reading programs informed by the growing scientific evidence on instructional factors that support early reading development (e.g., Castles et al., 2018 ; Foorman et al.2017 ; Rayner et al., 2001 ).

Common instructional approaches that lack generalizable empirical support include such practices as close reading ( Welsch et al., 2019 ), use of decodable text ( Jenkins et al., 2004 ), sustained silent reading ( NICHD, 2000 ), multisensory approaches ( Birsh, 2011 ), and the three-cueing system to support word recognition development (Seidenberg, 2017). Some of these instructional approaches rest on sound theoretical and pedagogical grounds. For example, giving beginning readers the opportunity to read decodable texts provides practice applying the grapheme-phoneme relations they have learned to successfully decode words ( Foorman et al., 2016a ), thus building lexical memory to support word reading accuracy and automaticity (Ehri, this issue). However, the only study to experimentally examine the impact of reading more versus less decodable texts as part of an early intervention phonics program for at risk first graders found no differences between the two groups on any of the posttest measures ( Jenkins et al., 2004 ). Such a result does not rule out the possibility of the usefulness of decodable texts but rather indicates the need to disentangle the active ingredients of effective interventions to specify what to use, when, how often, and for whom.

Similarly, multisensory approaches (e.g., Orton-Gillingham) that teach reading by using multiple senses (i.e., sight, hearing, touch, and movement) to help children make systematic connections between language, letters, and words ( Birsh, 2011 ) are commonplace and have considerable clinical support for facilitating reading development in children who struggle to learn to read. However, there is little scientific evidence that indicates that a multisensory approach is more effective than similarly structured phonological-based approaches that do not include a strong multisensory component (e.g., Boyer & Ehri, 2011 ; Ritchey & Goeke, 2006 ; Torgesen et al., 2001 ). With further research, we may find that a multisensory component is a critical ingredient of intervention for struggling readers, but we lack this empirical evidence currently.

Instruction in reading comprehension is another area where despite some studies showing moderate or strong support (see section on compelling evidence) other practices are employed despite limited support for them (e.g., Boulay et al., 2015 ). The complexity of reading comprehension relies on numerous cognitive resources and background knowledge; as a result, intervention directed exclusively at one component or another is not likely to be that impactful. For example, research shows a clear relation between breadth and depth of vocabulary and reading comprehension ( Wagner et al., 2007 ). One implication of this relation is that teaching vocabulary could improve reading comprehension. Numerous studies have tested this implication using instructional approaches that vary from teaching words in isolation to practices that involve instruction in the use of context to learn the meaning of unfamiliar words. Instruction has also included strategies to determine meaning of words through word study and morphological analysis (e.g., Beck & McKeown, 2007 ; Lesaux et al., 2014 ). Although these practices have been effective in increasing vocabulary knowledge of the words taught, there is limited evidence of transfer to untaught words (as measured by standardized measures) or to improvement in general reading comprehension ( Elleman et al., 2009 ; Lesaux et al., 2010 ). Such findings do not mean that vocabulary instruction is not a useful practice; rather, by itself, it is not sufficient to improve reading comprehension. To make meaningful gains, intervention for reading comprehension likely requires addressing multiple components of language as well as teaching content knowledge (see next section) to make sizable gains.

Other instructional practices go directly against what is known from the science of reading. For example, the three-cueing approach to support early word recognition (i.e., relying on a combination of semantic, syntactic, and graphophonic cues simultaneously to formulate an intelligent hypothesis about a word’s identity) ignores 40 years of overwhelming evidence that orthographic mapping involves the formation of letter-sound connections to bond spelling, pronunciation, and meaning of specific words in memory (see Ehri, this issue). Moreover, relying on alternative cuing systems impedes the building of automatic word-recognition skill that is the hallmark of skilled word reading ( Stanovich, 1990 ; 1991 ). The English orthography, being both alphabetic-phonemic and morpho-phonemic, clearly privileges the use of various levels of grapheme-phoneme correspondences to read words ( Frost, 2012 ), with rapid context-free word recognition being the process that most clearly distinguishes good from poor readers ( Perfetti, 1992 ; Stanovich, 1980 ). Guessing at a word amounts to a lost learning trial to help children learn the orthography of the word and thus reduce the need to guess the word in the future ( Castles et al., 2018 ; Share, 1995 ).

Similarly, alternative approaches to improving reading skills for struggling readers often fall well outside the scientific consensus regarding sources of reading difficulties. Some of these approaches are based on the tenet that temporal processing deficits in the auditory (e.g., Tallal, 1984 ) and visual (e.g., Stein, 2019 ) systems of the brain are causally related to poor word-reading development. Although there is some evidence that typically developing and struggling readers differ on measures tapping auditory ( Casini et al., 2018 ; Protopapas, 2014 ) and visual (e.g., Eden et al., 1995; Olson & Datta, 2002 ) processing skill, there is little evidence to support the use of instructional programs designed to improve auditory or visual systems to ameliorate reading problems ( Strong et al., 2011 ). Further, interventions designed to decrease visual confusion (e.g., Dyslexie font) or modify transient channel processing (e.g., Irlen lenses) to improve reading skill for children with reading disability have also failed to garner scientific support ( Hyatt et al., 2009 ; Iovino et al., 1998 ; Marinus et al., 2016 ). Similarly, although use of video games to improve reading via enhanced visual attention is reported to be an effective intervention for children with reading disability ( Peters et al., 2019 ), studies of this supplemental intervention approach have not compared it to standard supplemental approaches. Finally, studies of interventions designed to enhance other cognitive processes, such as working memory, also lack evidence effectiveness in terms of improved reading-related outcomes (e.g., Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016 ).

Promising but Not (Yet) Compelling Evidence in the Science of Reading

There are many promising areas of research that are poised to provide compelling evidence to inform the science of reading in the coming years. As we do not have space to provide a comprehensive list, we highlight only a few promising areas in prevention research and elementary education research.

Promising Directions in Prevention Research

Research on the prevention of reading problems is critical for our ability to reduce the number of children who struggle learning to read. One area of prevention research that has great promise but needs more evidence is how to more fully develop preschoolers’ language abilities that support later reading success. Both correlational and experimental findings indicate that providing children with opportunities to engage in high-quality conversations, coupled with exposure to advanced language models, matters for language development ( Cabell et al., 2015 ; Dickinson & Porche, 2011 ; Lonigan et al., 2011 ; Wasik & Hindman, 2018). Yet, most programs have a more robust impact on children’s proximal language learning (i.e., learning taught words) than on generalized language learning as measured with standardized assessments ( Marulis & Neuman, 2010 ).

Promising studies that have demonstrated significant effects on children’s general language development elucidate potential points of leverage. First, improving the connection between the school and home contexts by including parents as partners can promote synergistic learning for children as language-learning activities in school and home settings are increasingly aligned (e.g., Lonigan & Whitehurst, 1998 ). A second leverage point is increasing attention to children’s active use of language in the classroom to promote a rich dialogue between children and adults (e.g., Lonigan et al., 2011 ; Wasik & Hindman, 2018). A third leverage point is integrating content area instruction into early literacy instruction to improve language learning, for example, building children’s conceptual knowledge of the social and natural world and teaching vocabulary words within the context of related ideas (e.g., Gonzalez et al., 2011 ).

Promising Directions in Elementary Education Research

We present two promising areas in reading research with elementary-age students, one focused on improving linguistic comprehension and one focused on improving decoding, consistent with the simple view of reading.

The knowledge a reader brings to a text is the chief determinant of whether the reader will understand that text ( Anderson & Pearson, 1984 ). Thus, building knowledge is an essential, yet neglected, part of improving linguistic comprehension (Cabell & Hwang, this issue). Teaching reading is most often approached in early elementary classrooms as a subject that is independent from other subjects, such as science and social studies ( Palinscar & Duke, 2004 ). As such, reading is taught using curricula that do not systematically build children’s knowledge of the social and natural world. Instruction in reading and the content areas does not have to be an either/or proposition. Rather, the teaching of reading and of content-area learning can be simultaneously taught and integrated to powerfully impact children’s learning of both reading and content knowledge (e.g., Connor et al., 2017 ; Kim et al., 2020 ; Williams et al., 2014 ). This area of research is promising but not yet compelling, due to the small number of experimental and quasi-experimental studies that have examined either integrated content-area and literacy instruction or content-rich English Language Arts instruction in K-5 settings (approximately 31 studies). Through meta-analysis, this corpus of studies demonstrates that combining knowledge building and literacy approaches has a positive impact on both vocabulary and comprehension outcomes for elementary-age children ( Hwang et al., 2019 ). Further rigorous studies are needed that test widely used content-rich English Language Arts curricula (Cabell & Hwang, 2020, this issue); also required is new development of integrative and interdisciplinary approaches in this area.

There is also promising research on helping students to decode words more efficiently. It is widely accepted that students with reading difficulties often have underlying deficits in phonological processing (e.g., Brady & Schankweiler, 1991 ; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994 ; Torgesen, 2000 ; Vellutino et al., 1996 ) and these deficits are believed to disrupt the acquisition of spelling-to-sound translation routines that form the basis of early decoding-skill development (e.g., van IJzendoorn & Bus, 1994 ; Rack et al., 1992 ). For developing readers, decoding an unfamiliar letter string can result in either full or partial decoding. During partial decoding, the reader must match the assembled phonology from decoding with their lexical representation of a word ( Venezky, 1999 ). For example, encountering the word island might render the incorrect but partial decoding attempt, “izland”. A child’s flexibility with the partially decoded word is referred to as their “set for variability” or their ability to go from the decoded form to the correct pronunciation of a word. This skill serves as a bridge between decoding and lexical pronunciations and may be an important second step in the decoding process ( Elbro et al., 2012 ).

The matching of partial phonemic-decoding output is facilitated by the child’s decoding skills, the quality of the child’s lexical word representation, and by the potential contextual support of text ( Nation & Castles, 2017 ). Correlational studies indicate that students’ ability to go from a decoded form of a word to a correct pronunciation (their set for variability) predicts the reading of irregular words ( Tunmer & Chapman, 2012 ), regular words ( Elbro, et al., 2012 ), and nonwords ( Steacy et al., 2019a ). Set for variability has also been found to be a stronger predictor of word reading than phonological awareness in students in grades 2-5 (e.g., Steacy et al., 2019b ). Recent studies in this area suggest that children can benefit from being encouraged to engage with the irregularities of English ( Dyson et al., 2017 ) to promote the implicit knowledge structures needed to read and spell these complex words. Additional research suggests that set for variability training can be effective in promoting early word reading skills (e.g., Savage et al., 2018 ; Zipke, 2016 ). The work done in this area to date suggests that set for variability requires child knowledge structures and strategies, which can be developed through instruction, that allow successful matching of partial phonemic-decoding output with the corresponding phonological, morphological, and semantic lexical representations.

Where Do We Go Next in the Science of Reading?

Basic science research.

The science of reading has reached some consensus on the typical development of reading skill and how individual differences may alter this trajectory (e.g., Boscardin et al., 2008 ; Hjetland et al., 2019; Peng et al., 2019 ). Less is known about factors and mechanisms related to reading among diverse learners, a critical barrier to the field’s ability to address and prevent reading difficulty when it arises. Investigations with large and diverse participant samples are needed to improve understanding of how child characteristics additively and synergistically affect reading acquisition ( Hernandez, 2011 ; Lonigan et al., 2013 ). Insufficient research disentangles the influence of English-learner status for children who also have identified disabilities (Solari et al., 2014; Wagner et al., 2005 ). Greater attention to how language variation (e.g., dialect use) and differences in language experience affect reading development is crucial ( Patton Terry et al., 2010 ; Seidenberg & MacDonald, 2018; Washington et al., 2018). New realizations of the interaction between child characteristics and the depth of the orthography have also highlighted the importance of implicit learning in early reading ( Seidenberg, 2005 ; Steacy et al., 2019). Innovative cross-linguistic research is exploring how diverse methods of representing pronunciation and meaning within different orthographies, and children’s developing awareness of these methods, jointly predict reading skills (e.g., Kuo & Anderson, 2006 ; Wade-Woolley, 2016 ). Furthermore, a better understanding of the role of executive function, socio-emotional resilience factors, and biopsychosocial risk variables (e.g., poverty and trauma) on reading development is critical. Additional research like this, in English and across languages, is needed to develop effective instruction and assessments for all leaners.

A clearer understanding of child and contextual influences on the development of reading also will support improvements in how early and accurately children at risk for reading difficulties and disabilities are identified. Currently, numerous challenges remain in identifying children early enough to maximize benefits of interventions ( Colenbrander et al., 2018 ; Gersten et al., 2017b ). Investigators often use behavioral precursors or correlates of reading to estimate children’s risk for reading failure. Whereas this work has shown some promise ( Catts et al., 2015 ; Compton et al., 2006 , 2010 ; Lyytinen et al., 2015 ; Thompson et al., 2015 ), identification of risk typically involves high error rates, especially for preschoolers and kindergarteners who might benefit most from early identification and intervention. Similar challenges to accuracy have emerged when identifying older children with reading disabilities. Historically, this process has relied on discrepancy models (e.g., such as between reading skill and general cognitive aptitude), often yielding a just single comparison on which decisions are based (Waesche et al., 2011).

Challenges to identification for both younger and older children may be best met with frameworks that recognize the multifactorial casual basis of reading problems ( Pennington et al., 2012 ). Newer models of identification that combine across multiple indicators of risk derived from current skill, and that augment these indicators with other metrics of potential risk, may yield improved identification and interventions (e.g., Erbeli et al., 2018 ; Spencer et al., 2011). In particular, future research will need to consider and combine, while considering both additive and interactive effects, a wide array of measures, which may include genetic, neurological, and biopsychosocial indicators ( Wagner et al., 2019 ). Furthermore, more evaluation is needed of some new models of identification that integrate both risk and protective, or resiliency, factors, to see if these models increase the likelihood of correctly identifying those children most in need of additional instructional support (e.g., Catts & Petscher, 2020 ; Haft et al., 2016 ). Even if beneficial, it is likely that for early identification to be maximally effective, early risk assessments will need to be combined with progress monitoring of response to instruction ( Miciak & Fletcher, 2020 ). Of course, for such an approach to be successful, all children must receive high-quality reading instruction from the beginning and interventions need to be in place to address children who show varying levels of risk ( Foorman et al., 2016a ). Identifying children at risk and providing appropriate intervention early on has the potential to significantly improve reading outcomes and reduce the negative consequences of reading failure.

Intervention Innovations

Despite successes, too many children still struggle to read novel text with understanding, and intervention design efforts have not fully met this challenge ( Compton et al., 2014 ; Phillips et al., 2016 ; Vaughn et al., 2017 ). Greater creativity and integration of research from a broader array of complementary fields, including cognitive science and behavioral genetics may be required to deal with long-standing problems. For example, genetic information may have causal explanatory power; randomized trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of using such information to select and individualize instruction and intervention ( Hart, 2016 ).

The field would benefit from increased attention to the problem of fading intervention effects over time. Although there can be detectable effects of interventions several years after they are completed (e.g., Blachman et al., 2014 ; Vadasy et al., 2011 ; Vadasy & Sanders, 2013 ), invariably effect sizes reduce over time. A meta-analysis of long-term effects of interventions for phonemic awareness, fluency, and reading comprehension found a 40 percent reduction in effect sizes within one year post-intervention ( Suggate, 2016 ). Perhaps reading interventions with larger initial effects or sequential reading interventions with smaller but cumulating effects would be more resistant to fade-out.

Solutions to the problem of diminishing effects may be inspired by examples from other fields. The field of memory includes examples of content that appears immune from forgetting. This phenomenon has been called permastore ( Bahrick, 1984 ). For example, people only meaningfully exposed to a foreign language in school classes will still retain some knowledge of the language 50 years later. Additionally, expertise in the form of world-class performance appears to result from cumulative effects of long-term deliberate practice ( Ericsson, 1996 ), and skilled reading can be viewed as an example of expert performance ( Wagner & Stanovich, 1996 ). Informed by these concepts and by advances in early math instruction (e.g., Sarama et al., 2012 ; Kang et al., 2019 ), reading intervention studies should prioritize follow-up evaluations, including direct comparisons of follow-through strategies aimed at sustaining benefits from earlier instruction. For example, studies should evaluate booster interventions, professional development that better aligns cross-grade instruction, and how re-teaching and cumulative review may consolidate skill acquisition across time (e.g., Cepeda et al., 2006 ; Smolen et al., 2016 ).

Translational and Implementation Science

If the science of reading is to be applied in a manner resulting in achievement for all learners, the field must increase its focus on processes supporting implementation of evidence-based reading practices in schools. The field can leverage its considerable evidence-base to systematically investigate, with replication, both the effectiveness of reading instructional practices with diverse learners and to investigate processes that facilitate or prevent adoption, implementation, and sustainability of these practices (National Research Council, 2002; Schneider, 2018 ; Slavin, 2002 ). Research on these processes in educational contexts may be best facilitated by making use of methodological and conceptual tools developed within the traditions of translation and implementation science research ( Gilliland et al., 2019 ; Eccles & Mittman, 2006 ). For example, these frameworks can support studies on whether and how educators and policymakers use information about evidence to inform decision making (e.g., Farley-Ripple et al., 2018 ) and studies on how institutional routines may need to be adapted to best integrate new procedures and practices (e.g., scheduling changes in the school day; Foorman et al., 2016b ).

Reading research that uses translational and implementation science frameworks and methodologies will make more explicit the processes of adoption, implementation and sustainability and how these interact within diverse settings and with multiple populations ( Brown et al., 2017 ; Fixsen et al., 2005 , 2013 ). This work will be guided by new questions, not only asking “what works” but also “what works for whom under what conditions” and “what factors promote sustainability of implementation.” Innovative studies would adhere to rigorous scientific standards, prioritize hypothesis testing within a deductive, experimental framework, and leverage qualitative methodologies to systematically explore implementation processes and factors ( Brown et al., 2017 ). Results could iteratively inform the breadth of scientific reading research, including basic mechanisms related to reading and the development of novel assessments and interventions to support achievement among diverse learners in diverse settings ( Cook & Odom, 2013 ; Douglas et al., 2015 ; Forman et al., 2013 ).

There has recently been a resurgence of the debate on the science of reading, and in this article, we described the existing evidence base and possible future directions. Compelling evidence is available to guide understanding of how reading develops and identify proven instructional practices that impact both decoding and linguistic comprehension. Whereas there is some evidence that is either not compelling or has yet to be generated for instructional practices and programs that are widely used, the scientific literature on reading is ever-expanding through contributions from the fields education, psychology, linguistics, communication science, neuroscience, and computational sciences. As these additions to the literature mature and contribute to an evidence base, we anticipate they will inform and shape the science of reading as well as the science of teaching reading.

Acknowledgments

First author was determined by group consensus. Authors equally contributed and are listed and alphabetically. The authors’ work was supported by funding from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the Institute of Education Sciences (R305A160241, R305A170430, R305F100005, R305F100027, R324A180020, R324B19002) and Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P50HD52120, P20HD091013, HD095193, HD072286).

• Anderson RC, & Pearson PD (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In Pearson PD, Barr R, Kamil ML, & Mosenthal P (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (1st ed., pp. 255–291). New York: Longman. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baker S, Lesaux N, Jayanthi M, Dimino J, Proctor CP, Morris J, … Newman-Gonchar R (2014). Teaching academic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school (NCEE 2014-4012) . Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/english_learners_pg_040114.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Bahrick HP (1984). Semantic memory content in permastore: Fifty years of memory for Spanish learned in school . Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , 113 ,1–29. DOI: 10.1037//0096-3445.113.1.1 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beck IL, & McKeown MG (2007). Increasing young low-income children’s oral vocabulary repertoires through rich and focused instruction . The Elementary School Journal , 107 ( 3 ), 251–271. DOI: 10.1086/511706 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berkeley S, Scruggs TE, & Mastropier MA (2012). Reading comprehension instruction for student with learning disabilities, 1995-2006: A meta-analysis . Remedial and Special Education , 31 , 423–436. 10.1177/0741932509355988 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Birsh JR (2011). Multisensory teaching of basic language skills . Brookes Publishing Company. PO Box 10624, Baltimore, MD 21285. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blachman BA, Schatschneider C, Fletcher JM, Francis DJ, Clonan SM, Shaywitz BA, & Shaywitz SE (2004). Effects of intensive reading remediation for second and third graders and a 1-year follow-up . Journal of Educational Psychology , 96 ( 3 ), 444–461. doi: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.444 [ Google Scholar ]
• Blachman BA, Schatschneider C, Fletcher JM, Murray MS, Munger KA, & Vaughn MG (2014). Intensive reading remediation in grade 2 or 3: Are there effects a decade later? Journal of Educational Psychology , 106 ( 1 ), 46–57. doi: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/10.1037/a0033663 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boscardin CK, Muthén B, Francis DJ, & Baker EL (2008). Early identification of reading difficulties using heterogeneous developmental trajectories . Journal of Educational Psychology , 100 , 192–208. 10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.192 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boulay B, Goodson B, Frye M, Blocklin M, & Price C (2015). Summary of Research Generated by Striving Readers on the Effectiveness of Interventions for Struggling Adolescent Readers. NCEE 2016-4001 . National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boyer N, & Ehri LC (2011). Contribution of phonemic segmentation instruction with letters and articulation pictures to word reading and spelling in beginners . Scientific Studies of Reading , 15 ( 5 ), 440–470. 10.1080/10888438.2010.520778 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brady S (2020). Strategies used in education for resisting the evidence and implications of the science of reading . The Reading Journal , 1 ( 1 ), 33–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brady SA, & Shankweiler DP (Eds.). (1991). Phonological processes in literacy: A tribute to Isabelle Y. Liberman Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown CH, Curran G, Palinkas LA, Aarons GA, Wells KB, Jones L, Collins LM, Duan N, Mittman BS, Wallace A, Tabak RG, Ducharme L, Chambers DA, Neta G, Wiley T, Landsverk J, Cheung K, & Cruden G (2017). An overview of research and evaluation designs for dissemination and implementation . Annual Review of Public Health , 38 , 1–22. 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044215 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cabell SQ, Justice LM, McGinty AS, DeCoster J, & Forston L (2015). Teacher-child conversations in preschool classrooms: Contributions to children’s vocabulary development . Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 30 , 80–92. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.09.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Calkins L (2020). No one gets to own the term “The Science of Reading” . Retrieved from: https://readingandwritingproject.org/news/no-one-gets-to-own-the-term-the-science-of-reading [ Google Scholar ]
• Caravolas M, Lervåg A, Defior S, Málkova G,S, & Hulme C (2013). Different patterns, but equivalent predictors, of growth in reading in consistent and inconsistent orthographies . Psychological Science , 24 , 1398–1407. 10.1177/0956797612473122 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Casini L, Pech-Georgel C, & Ziegler JC (2018). It's about time: Revisiting temporal processing deficits in dyslexia . Developmental Science , 21 ( 2 ), 1–14. DOI: 10.1111/desc.12530 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Castles A, Rastle K, & Nation K (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert . Psychological Science in the Public Interest , 19 ( 1 ), 5–51. 10.1177/1529100618772271 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Catts H, Adlof S, & Weismer SE (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading . Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research , 49 , 278–293. 10.1044/1092-4388(2006/023) [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Catts H, Herrera S, Nielsen D, & Bridges, 2015. Early prediction of reading comprehension within the simple view framework . Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal , 28 , 1407–1425. 10.1007/s11145-015-9576-x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Catts H, Hogan T, & Adlof S (2005). Developmental changes in reading and reading disabilities. In Catts H & Kamhi A, A. (Eds.). Connections between language and reading disabilities . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum [ Google Scholar ]
• Catts HW, & Petscher Y (2020, March 25). A cumulative risk and protection model of dyslexia . 10.35542/osf.io/g57ph [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cepeda NJ, Pashler H, Vul E, Wixted JT, & Rohrer D (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis . Psychological Bulletin , 132 ( 3 ), 354–380. 10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chall J (1967). Learning to read: The great debate . New York: McGraw-Hill. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chapman JW, & Tunmer WE (2016). Is Reading Recovery an effective intervention for students with reading difficulties? A critique of the i3 scale-up study . Reading Psychology , 37 ( 7 ), 1025–1042. 10.1080/02702711.2016.1157538 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Colenbrander D, Ricketts J, & Breadmore HL (2018). Early identification of dyslexia: Understanding the issues . Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools , 49 , 817–828. 10.1044/2018_LSHSS-DYSLC-18-0007 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Compton DL, Fuchs D, Fuchs LS, & Bryant JD (2006). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: A two-year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures . Journal of Educational Psychology , 98 , 394–409. [ Google Scholar ]
• Compton DL, Fuchs D, Fuchs LS, Bouton B, Gilbert JK, Barquero LA, Cho E, & Crouch RC (2010). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: Eliminating false positives and exploring the promise of a two-stage screening process . Journal of Educational Psychology . 102 , 327–340. 10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.394 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Compton DL, Miller AC, Elleman AM, & Steacy LM (2014). Have we forsaken reading theory in the name of “quick fix” interventions for children with reading disability? Scientific Studies of Reading , 18 ( 1 ), 55–73. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2013.836200 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Connor CMD, Dombek J, Crowe EC, Spencer M, Tighe EL, Coffinger S, … Petscher Y (2017). Acquiring science and social studies knowledge in kindergarten through fourth grade: Conceptualization, design, implementation, and efficacy testing of content-area literacy instruction (CALI) . Journal of Educational Psychology , 109 ( 3 ), 301–320. doi: 10.1037/edu0000128 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cook BG, & Odom SL (2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education . Exceptional Children , 79 , 135–144. 10.1177/001440291307900201 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dane FC (1990). Research methods (Vol. 120 ). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dehaene S (2011). The massive impact of literacy on the brain and its consequences for education . Human Neuroplascticity and Education , 117 , 19–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dehaene-Lambertz G, Monzalvo K, & Dehaene S (2018). The emergence of the visual word form: Longitudinal evolution of category-specific ventral visual areas during reading acquisition . PLoS biology , 16 ( 3 ), e2004103. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeWalt DA, & Hink A (2009). Health literacy and child health outcomes: a systematic review of the literature . Pediatrics , 124 ( Supplement 3 ), S265–S274. 10.1542/peds.2009-1162B [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dickinson DK, & Porche MV (2011). Relation between language experiences in preschool classrooms and children’s kindergarten and fourth-grade language and reading abilities . Child Development , 82 , 870–886. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01576.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Douglas NF, Campbell WN, & Hinckley J (2015). Implementation science: Buzzword or game changer? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research , 58 , S1827–S1836. doi: 10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-15-0302. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dyson H, Best W, Solity J, & Hulme C (2017). Training mispronunciation correction and word meanings improves children’s ability to learn to read words . Scientific Studies of Reading , 1–16. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2017.1315424 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eccles MP & Mittman BS (2006). Welcome to implementation science . Implementation Science , 1 , 1–3. 10.1186/1748-5908-1-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eden GF, VanMeter JW, Rumsey JM, Maisog JM, Woods RP, & Zeffiro TA (1996). Abnormal processing of visual motion in dyslexia revealed by functional brain imaging . Nature , 382 ( 6586 ), 66–69. DOI: 10.1038/382066a0 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ehri LC (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues . Scientific Studies of Reading , 9 , 167–188. 10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ehri LC (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning . Scientific Studies of Reading , 18 ( 1 ), 5–21. 10.1080/10888438.2013.819356 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ehri LC, Nunes SR, Stahl SA, & Willows DM (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis . Review of Educational Research , 71 , 393–447. 10.3102/00346543071003393 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ehri LC, Nunes SR, Willows D,M, Schuster BV, Yaghoub-Zadeh Z, & Shanahan T (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis . Reading Research Quarterly , 36 , 250–287. 10.1598/RRQ.36.3.2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elbro C, de Jong PF, Houter D, & Nielsen A (2012). From spelling pronunciation to lexical access: A second step in word decoding? Scientific Studies of Reading , 16 ( 4 ), 341–359. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2011.568556 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elleman A, Lindo E, Morphy P, & Compton D (2009). The impact of vocabulary instruction on passage-level comprehension of school-age children: A meta-analysis , Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 2 , 1–44. 10.1080/19345740802539200 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ellis NC, Natsume I, Stavropoulou K, Hoxhallari L, van Daal VHP, Polyzoe N, et al. (2004). The effects of the orthographic depth on learning to read alphabetic, syllabic, and logographic scripts . Reading Research Quarterly , 39 , 438–468. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.39.4.5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Erbeli F (2019). Translating research findings in genetics of learning disabilities to special education instruction . Mind, Brain, and Education , 13 ( 2 ), 74–79. 10.1111/mbe.12196 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Erbeli F, Hart SA, Wagner RW, & Taylor J (2018). Examining the etiology of reading disability as conceptualized by the hybrid model . Scientific Studies of Reading , 22 ( 2 ), 167–180. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2017.1407321. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ericsson KA (1996). The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Every Student Succeeds Act (2015). Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat. 1177 (2015-2016) .
• Farley-Ripple, May H, Karpyn A, Tilley K, & McDonough K (2018). Rethinking connections between research and practice in education: A conceptual framework . Educational Researcher , 47 ( 4 ), 235–245. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fixsen D, Blase K, Metz A, & Van Dyke M (2013). Statewide implementation of evidence-based programs . Exceptional Children , 79 , 213–230. 10.1177/001440291307900206 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fixsen DL, Naoom SF, Blase KA, Friedman RM & Wallace F (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature . Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231). [ Google Scholar ]
• Flesch R (1955). Why Johnny can’t read - and what you can do about it . NY: Harper & Brothers. [ Google Scholar ]
• Foorman B, Beyler N, Borradaile K, Coyne M, Denton C, Dimino J, …Wissel S (2016a). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade (NCEE 2016-4008) . Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/wwc_foundationalreading_070516.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Foorman B, Dombek J, & Smith K (2016b). Seven elements important to successful implementation of early literacy intervention . New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development , 2016 ( 154 ), 49–65. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Foorman BR, Koon S, Petscher Y, Mitchell A, & Truckenmiller A (2015). Examining general and specific factors in the dimensionality of oral language and reading in 4th–10th grades . Journal of Educational Psychology , 107 , 884–899. DOI: 10.1037/edu0000026 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Foorman B, Petscher Y, Herrera S (2018). Unique and common effects of decoding and language factors in predicting reading comprehension in grades 1-10 . Learning and Individual Differences , 63 , 12–23. 10.1016/j.lindif.2018.02.011 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Foorman BF, Smith KG, & Kosanovich ML (2017). Rubric for evaluating reading/language arts instructional materials for kindergarten to grade 5 (REL 2016-219) . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. [ Google Scholar ]
• Forman SG, Shapiro ES, Codding RS, Gonzales JE, Reddy LA, Rosenfield SA, Sanetti LMH, & Stoiber KC (2013). Implementation science and school psychology . School Psychology Quarterly , 28 , 77–100. 10.1037/spq0000019 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frost R (2012). Toward a universal model of reading . Behavioral & Brain Sciences , 35 , 263–279. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X11001841 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• García JR, & Cain K (2014). Decoding and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis to identify which reader and assessment characteristics influence the strength of the relationship in English . Review of Educational Research , 84 ( 1 ), 74–111. 10.3102/0034654313499616 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gersten R, Baker SK, Shanahan T, Linan-Thompson S, Collins P, & Scarcella R (2007). Effective literacy and English language instruction for English learners in the elementary grades: A practice guide (NCEE 2007-4011) . Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/20074011.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Gersten R, Compton D, Connor CM, Dimino J, Santoro L, Linan-Thompson S, & Tilly WD (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide. (NCEE 2009-4045) . Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/rti_math_pg_042109.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Gersten R, Jayanthi M, & Dimino J (2017a). Too much, too soon? Unanswered questions from national response to intervention evaluation . Exceptional Children , 83 , 244–254. 10.1177/0014402917692847 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gersten R, Newman-Gonchar R, Haymond K, & Dimino J (2017b). What is the evidence base for Response to Intervention in reading in grades 1–3? (REL 2016-129) . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED573686.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Gillam RB, Loeb DF, Hoffman LM, Bohman T, Champlin CA, Thibodeau L, … & Friel-Patti S (2008). The efficacy of Fast ForWord language intervention in school-age children with language impairment: A randomized controlled trial . Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research , 51 ( 1 ), 97–119. 10.1044/1092-4388(2008/007) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilliland CT, White J, Gee B, Kreeftmeijer-Vegter R, Bietrix F, Ussi AE, Hajduch M, Kocis P, Chiba N, Hirasawa R, Suematsu M, Bryans J, Newman S, Hall MD, & Austin CP (2019). The fundamental characteristics of a translational scientist . ACS Pharmacology & Translational Science , 2 , 213–261. 10.1021/acsptsci.9b00022 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gonzalez JE, Pollard-Durodola S, Simmons DC, Taylor AB, Davis MJ, Kim M, & Simmons L (2011). Developing low-income preschoolers’ social studies and science vocabulary knowledge through content-focused shared book reading . Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness , 4 ( 1 ), 25–52. doi: 10.1080/19345747.2010.487927 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodman KS (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game , Literacy Research and Instruction , 6 ( 4 ), 126–135, 10.1080/19388076709556976 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gough PB, & Tunmer WE (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability . Remedial and Special Education , 7 , 6–10. 10.1177/074193258600700104 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haft SL, Myers CA, & Hoeft F (2016). Socio-emotional and cognitive resilience in children with reading disabilities . Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences , 10 , 133–141. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hanford E (2019). At a loss for words: How a flawed idea is teaching millions of kids to be poor readers . Retrieved from: https://www.apmreports.org/story/2019/08/22/whats-wrong-how-schools-teach-reading [ Google Scholar ]
• Hart SA (2016). Precision education initiative: Moving toward personalized education . Mind, Brain, and Education , 10 ( 4 ), 209–211.doi: 10.1111/mbe.12109 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hernandez DJ (2011). Double jeopardy: How third-grade reading skills and poverty influence high school graduation . Annie E. Casey Foundation. https://files-eric-ed-gov.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/fulltext/ED518818.pdf https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1097/00011363-200501000-00004 [ Google Scholar ]
• Hwang H, Cabell SQ, White TG, & Joiner R (2019, December). A systematic review of the research on the effect of knowledge building in literacy instruction on comprehension and vocabulary in the elementary years. Presentation at the annual meeting of the Literacy Research Association , Tampa, FL. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hyatt KJ, Stephenson J, & Carter M (2009). A review of three controversial educational practices: Perceptual motor programs, sensory integration, and tinted lenses . Education & Treatment of Children , 32 ( 2 ), 313–342. doi: 10.1353/etc.0.0054 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Iovino I, Fletcher JM, Breitmeyer BG, & Foorman BR (1998). Colored overlays for visual perceptual deficits in children with reading disability and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Are they differentially effective? Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology , 20 ( 6 ), 791–806. DOI: 10.1076/jcen.20.6.791.1113 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Israel SE, & Duffy GG (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of Research on Reading Comprehension . New York: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jenkins JR, Peyton JA, Sanders EA, & Vadasy PF (2004). Effects of reading decodable texts in supplemental first-grade tutoring . Scientific Studies of Reading , 8 , 53–85. 10.1207/s1532799xssr0801_4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Joyce E (2020, January 22). Scientific Racism 2.0 (SR2.0): An erroneous argument from genetics which inadvertently refines scientific racism . 10.35542/osf.io/f7jnh [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kamil ML, Borman GD, Dole J, Kral CC, Salinger T, & Torgesen J (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A practice guide (NCEE #2008-4027) . Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/adlit_pg_082608.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Kang CY, Duncan GJ, Clements DH, Sarama J, & Bailey DH (2019). The roles of transfer of learning and forgetting in the persistence and fadeout of early childhood mathematics interventions . Journal of Educational Psychology , 111 , 590–603. 10.1037/edu0000297 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kershaw S & Schatschneider C (2012). A latent variable approach to the simple view of reading . Reading and Writing , 25 , 433–464. 10.1177/0741932518764833 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim JS, Burkhauser MA, Mesite LM, Asher CA, Relyea JE, Fitzgerald J, & Elmore J (2020). Improving reading comprehension, science domain knowledge, and reading engagement through a first-grade content literacy intervention . Journal of Educational Psychology . Advance online publication. 10.1037/edu0000465. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuo LJ, & Anderson RC (2006). Morphological awareness and learning to read: A cross-language perspective . Educational Psychologist , 41 , 161–180. 10.1207/s15326985ep4103_3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Language and Reading Research Consortium & Chiu YD (2018). The simple view of reading across development: Prediction of grade 3 reading comprehension from prekindergarten skills . Remedial and Special Education , 39 ( 5 ), 289–303. 10.1177/0741932518762055 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee JJ, Wedow R, Okbay A, Kong E, Maghzian O, Zacher M, … & Fontana MA (2018). Gene discovery and polygenic prediction from a 1.1-million-person GWAS of educational attainment . Nature Genetics , 50 ( 8 ), 1112–1121.doi: 10.1038/s41588-018-0147-3 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lesaux NK, Kieffer MJ, Faller SE, & Kelley JG (2010). The effectiveness and ease of implementation of an academic vocabulary intervention for linguistically diverse students in urban middle schools . Reading Research Quarterly , 45 ( 2 ), 196–228. 10.1598/RRQ.45.2.3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lesaux NK, Kieffer MJ, Kelley JG, & Harris JR (2014). Effects of academic vocabulary instruction for linguistically diverse adolescents: Evidence from a randomized field trial . American Educational Research Journal , 51 ( 6 ), 1159–1194. 10.3102/0002831214532165 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Little CW, Haughbrook R, & Hart SA (2017). Cross-study differences in the etiology of reading comprehension: A meta-analytical review of twin studies . Behavior Genetics , 47 ( 1 ), 52–76. 10.1007/s10519-016-9810-6 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonigan CJ, Anthony JL, Phillips BM, Purpura DJ, Wilson SB, & McQueen J (2009). The nature of preschool phonological processing abilities and their relations to vocabulary, general cognitive abilities, and print knowledge . Journal of Educational Psychology , 101 , 345–358. 10.1037/a0013837 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonigan CJ, Burgess SR, Anthony JL, & Barker TA (1998). Development of phonological sensitivity in two- to five-year-old children . Journal of Educational Psychology , 90 , 294–311. 10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.294 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonigan C, Burgess S, & Schatschneider C (2018). Examining the Simple View of Reading with elementary school children: Still simple after all these years . Remedial and Special Education , 39 ( 5 ), 260–273. 10.1177/0741932518764833 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonigan CJ, Farver JM, Nakamoto J, & Eppe S (2013). Developmental trajectories of preschool early literacy skills: A comparison of language-minority and monolingual-English children . Developmental Psychology , 49 , 1943–1957. 10.1037/a0031408 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonigan CJ, Farver JM, Phillips BM, & Clancy-Menchetti J (2011). Promoting the development of preschool children’s emergent literacy skills: A randomized evaluation of a literacy-focused curriculum and two professional development models . Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal , 24 , 305–337. doi: 10.1007/s11145-009-9214-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonigan CJ, & Whitehurst GJ (1998). Relative efficacy of parent and teacher involvement in a shared-reading intervention for preschool children from low-income backgrounds . Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 13 , 263–290. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2006(99)80038-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lyytinen H, Erskine J, Hämäläinen J, Torppa M & Ronimus M (2015). Dyslexia-early identification and prevention: Highlights of the Jyvaskyla longitudinal study of dyslexia . Current Developmental Disorders Report , 2 , 330–338. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maher B (2008). Personal genomes: The case of missing heritability . Nature , 456 , 18–21. doi: 10.1038/456018a. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mancilla-Martinez J, & Lesaux N (2010). Predictors of reading comprehension for struggling readers: The case of Spanish-speaking language minority children . Journal of Educational Psychology , 102 ( 3 ), 701–711. 10.1037/a0019135. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marinus E, Mostard M, Segers E, Schubert TM, Madelaine A, & Wheldall K (2016). A special font for people with dyslexia: Does it work and, if so, why? Dyslexia , 22 ( 3 ), 233–244. doi: 10.1002/dys.1527 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marulis LM, & Neuman SB (2010). The effects of vocabulary intervention on young children’s word learning: A meta-analysis . Review of Educational Research , 80 ( 3 ), 300–335. doi: 10.3102/0034654310377087 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Melby-Lervåg M, Redick TS, & Hulme C (2016). Working memory training does not improve performance on measures of intelligence or other measures of “far transfer” evidence from a meta-analytic review . Perspectives on Psychological Science , 11 ( 4 ), 512–534. doi: 10.1177/1745691616635612 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miciak J, & Fletcher JM (2020). The critical role of instructional response for identifying dyslexia and other learning disabilities . Journal of Learning Disabilities . Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/0022219420906801 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nation K, & Castles A (2017). Putting the learning into orthographic learning . Theories of reading development , 148–168. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). National reading panel—Teaching children to read: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Pub. No. 00-4754) . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• National Institute for Literacy (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel . Retrieved at https://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/NELPReport09.pdf
• Neuman SB, & Kaefer T (2018). Developing low-income children’s vocabulary and content knowledge through a shared book reading program . Contemporary Educational Psychology , 52 , 15–24. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.12.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Olson R & Datta H (2002). Visual-temporal processing in reading-disabled and normal twins . Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal , 15 ( 1-2 ), 127–149. [ Google Scholar ]
• Palinscar AS, & Duke NK (2004). The role of text and text-reader interactions in young children’s reading development and achievement . The Elementary School Journal , 105 ( 2 ), 183–197. doi: 10.1086/428864 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Patton-Terry N, Connor CM, Thomas-Tate S, & Love M (2010). Examining relationships among dialect variation, literacy skills, and school context in first grade . Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research , 53 ( 1 ), 126–145. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0058) [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peng P, Fuchs D, Fuchs LS, Elleman AM, Kearns DM, Gilbert JK, … & Patton S III (2019). A longitudinal analysis of the trajectories and predictors of word reading and reading comprehension development among at-risk readers . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 52 , 195–208. 10.1177/00222194188090 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pennington BF, Santerre-Lemmon L, Rosenberg J, MacDonald B, Boada R, et al. (2012). Individual prediction of dyslexia by single versus multiple deficit models . Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 121 , 212–224. doi: 10.1037/a0025823 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Perfetti C (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension . Scientific Studies of Reading , 11 ( 4 ), 357–383. 10.1080/10888430701530730 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Perfetti CA (1992). The representation problems in reading acquisition. In Gough PB, Ehri LC, & Treiman R (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 145–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peters JL, De Losa L, Bavin EL, & Crewther SG (2019). Efficacy of dynamic visuo-attentional interventions for reading in dyslexic and neurotypical children: A systematic review . Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews , 100 , 58–76. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.02.015 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Phillips BM, Connor CM, Lonigan CJ, Willis KB, & Crowe E (presented 2016, July). Supporting language and comprehension in second grade: Results from a Tier 2 efficacy trial. Presentation at Annual Meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading , Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Porto, Portugal. [ Google Scholar ]
• Protopapas A (2014). From temporal processing to developmental language disorders: Mind the gap . Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 369 ( 1634 ), 20130090. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rack JP, Snowling MJ, & Olson RK (1992). The nonword reading deficit in developmental dyslexia: A review . Reading Research Quarterly , 27 ( 1 ), 28–53. doi: 10.2307/747832 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rayner K, Foorman BR, Perfetti CA, Pesetsky D, & Seidenberg MS (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading . Psychological Science in the Public Interest , 2 ( 2 ), 31–74. doi: 10.1111/1529-1006.00004 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reutzel DR, Petscher Y, & Spichtig AN (2012). Exploring the value added of a guided, silent reading intervention: Effects on struggling third-grade readers’ achievement . The Journal of Educational Research , 105 ( 6 ), 404–415. 10.1080/00220671.2011.629693 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ritchey KD, & Goeke JL (2006). Orton-Gillingham and Orton-Gillingham—based reading instruction: A review of the literature . The Journal of Special Education , 40 ( 3 ), 171–183. 10.1177/00224669060400030501 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sabatini JP, Sawaki Y, Shore JR, & Scarborough HS (2010). Relationships among reading skills of adults with low literacy . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 43 , 122–138. 10.1177/0022219409359343 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sarama J, Clements DH, Wolfe CB, & Spitler ME (2012). Longitudinal evaluation of a scale-up model for teaching mathematics with trajectories and technologies . Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness , 5 , 105–135. 10.3102/0002831212469270 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Savage R, Georgiou G, Parrila R, & Maiorino K (2018). Preventative reading interventions teaching direct mapping of graphemes in texts and set-for-variability aid at-risk learners . Scientific Studies of Reading , 22 ( 3 ), 225–247. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2018.1427753 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schneider M (2018, December 17). A more systematic approach to replicating research . Institute of Education Sciences. https://ies.ed.gov/director/remarks/12-17-2018.asp [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwartz S (2019, December). The most popular reading programs aren't backed by science . Retrieved from EDWeek https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2019/12/04/the-most-popular-reading-programs-arent-backed.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Scruggs TE, Mastropieri MA, & McDuffie KA (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A meta-synthesis of qualitative research . Exceptional Children , 73 ( 4 ), 392–416. 10.1177/001440290707300401 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seidenberg MS (2005). Connectionist models of word reading . Current Directions in Psychological Science , 14 ( 5 ), 238–242. 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00372.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Selzam S, Dale PS, Wagner RK, DeFries JC, Cederlöf M, O’Reilly PF, … & Plomin R (2017). Genome-wide polygenic scores predict reading performance throughout the school years . Scientific Studies of Reading , 21 ( 4 ), 334–349.doi: 10.1080/10888438.2017.1299152 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seymour PH, Aro M, & Erskine JM (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in european orthographies . British Journal of Psychology , 94 ( 2 ), 143–174. doi: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/10.1348/000712603321661859 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shanahan T, Callison K, Carriere C, Duke NK, Pearson PD, Schatschneider C, & Torgesen J (2010). Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd grade: A practice guide (NCEE 2010-4038) . Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/readingcomp_pg_092810.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Share DL (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition . Cognition , 55 , 151–218. 10.1016/0010-0277(94)00645-2 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Slavin RE (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research . Educational Researcher , 31 , 15–21. 10.3102/0013189x031007015 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith (1971). Understanding Reading . New York: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smolen P, Zhang Y, & Byrne JH (2016). The right time to learn: mechanisms and optimization of spaced learning . Nature Reviews Neuroscience , 17 ( 2 ), 77–88. 10.1038/nrn.2015.18 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich KE (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency . Reading Research Quarterly , 16 ( 1 ), 32–71. DOI: 10.2307/747348 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich KE (1990). Concepts in developmental theories of reading skill: Cognitive resources, automaticity, and modularity . Developmental Review , 10 ( 1 ), 72–100. 10.1016/0273-2297(90)90005-O [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich KE (1991). Word recognition: Changing perspectives. In Barr R, Kamil ML, Mosenthal PB, & Pearson PD (Eds.), Handbook of reading research , Vol. 2 (p. 418–452). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich KE (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers . Guilford Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich (2003). Understanding the styles of science in the study of reading . Scientific Studies of Reading , 7 ( 2 ), 105–126, 10.1207/S1532799XSSR0702_1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich KE, & Siegel LS (1994). Phenotypic performance profile of children with reading disabilities: A regression-based test of the phonological-core variable-difference model . Journal of Educational Psychology , 86 ( 1 ), 24–53. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.24 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steacy LM, Compton DL, Petscher Y, Elliott JD, Smith K, Rueckl JG, Sawi O, Frost SJ, & Pugh K (2019a). Development and prediction of context-dependent vowel pronunciation in elementary readers . Scientific Studies of Reading , 23 ( 1 ), 49–63. 10.1080/10888438.2018.1466303 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steacy LM, Wade-Woolley L, Rueckl JG, Pugh KR, Elliott JD, & Compton DL (2019b). The role of set for variability in irregular word reading: Word and child predictors in typically developing readers and students at-risk for reading disabilities . Scientific Studies of Reading , 23 ( 6 ), 523–532. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2019.1620749 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stein J (2019). The current status of the magnocellular theory of developmental dyslexia . Neuropsychologia , 130 , 66–77. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.03.022 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Storch S, & Whitehurst GR (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal, structural model . Developmental Psychology , 38 , 934–947 10.1037/0012-1649.38.6.934 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Strong GK, Torgerson CJ, Torgerson D, & Hulme C (2011). A systematic meta-analytic review of evidence for the effectiveness of the 'fast ForWord' language intervention program . Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 52 ( 3 ), 224–235. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02329.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Suggate SP (2016). A meta-analysis of the long-term effect of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and reading comprehension analyses . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 49 , 77–96. 10.1177/0022219414528540 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tallal P (1984). Temporal or phonetic processing deficit in dyslexia? That is the question . Applied Psycholinguistics , 5 ( 2 ), 167–169. 10.1017/S0142716400004963 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Therrien WJ (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading: A meta-analysis . Remedial and Special Education , 25 , 253–261. 10.1177/07419325040250040801 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson PA, Hulme C, Nash HM, Gooch D, Hayiou-Thomas E & Snowling MJ (2015). Developmental dyslexia: Predicting risk . Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 56 , 976–987. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12412 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Torgesen JK (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters . Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 15 ( 1 ), 55–64. doi: 10.1207/SLDRP1501_6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Torgesen JK, Alexander AW, Wagner RK, Rashotte CA, Voeller KK, & Conway T (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 34 ( 1 ), 33–58. doi: 10.1177/002221940103400104 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tunmer WE, & Chapman JW (2012). Does set for variability mediate the influence of vocabulary knowledge on the development of word recognition skills? Scientific Studies of Reading , 16 ( 2 ), 122–140. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2010.542527 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vadasy PF, Nelson JR, & Sanders EA (2011). Longer term effects of a tier 2 kindergarten vocabulary intervention for English learners . Remedial and Special Education , 34 , 91–101. 10.1177/0741932511420739 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vadasy PF, & Sanders EA (2013). Two-year follow-up of a code-oriented intervention for lower-skilled first graders: The influence of language status and word reading skills on third-grade literacy outcomes . Reading & Writing , 26 , 821–843. 10.1007/s11145-012-9393-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van IJzendoorn MH, & Bus AG (1994). Meta-analytic confirmation of the nonword reading deficit in developmental dyslexia . Reading Research Quarterly , 3 , 267–275. 10.2307/747877 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaughn S, Martinez LR, Wanzek J, Roberts G, Swanson E, & Fall AM (2017). Improving content knowledge and comprehension for English language learners: Findings from a randomized control trial . Journal of Educational Psychology , 109 , 22–34. 10.1037/edu0000069 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vellutino FR, Scanlon DM, Sipay ER, Small SG, Pratt A, Chen R, & Denckla MB (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability . Journal of Educational Psychology 88 , 601–638. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.88.4.601 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vellutino FR, Tunmer WE, Jaccard J, & Chen S (2007). Components of reading ability: Multivariate evidence for a convergent skills model of reading development . Scientific Studies of Reading , 11 , 3–32. DOI: 10.1080/10888430709336632 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Venezky RL (1999). The American way of spelling: The structure and origins of American English Orthography . New York, NY: Guilford Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Verhoeven L, & van Leeuwe J (2008). Prediction of the development of reading comprehension: A longitudinal study . Applied Cognitive Psychology , 22 , 407–423. 10.1002/acp.1414 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wade-Woolley L (2016). Prosodic and phonemic awareness in children’s reading of long and short words . Reading and Writing , 29 , 371–382. 10.1007/s11145-015-9600-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner RK, Edwards AA, Malkowski A, Schatschneider C, Joyner RE, Wood S, Zirps FA (2019). Combining old and new for better understanding and predicting dyslexia . New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development , 165 , 1–11. doi: 10.1002/cad.20289 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner RK, Francis DJ, & Morris RD (2005). Identifying English language learners with learning disabilities: Key challenges and possible approaches . Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 20 ( 1 ), 6–15. 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00115.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner RK, Muse AE, & Tannenbaum KR (2007). Promising avenues for better understanding implications of vocabulary development for reading comprehension. In Wagner R. Muse A, Tannenbaum K (Eds). Vocabulary acquisition: Implications for reading comprehension . New York: Guilford Press. pp. 276–291. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner RK, & Stanovich KE (1996). Expertise in reading. In Ericsson KA (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games (pp. 189–225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner RK, & Torgesen JK (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills . Psychological Bulletin , 101 , 192–212. 10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.192 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner R, Torgesen J, & Rashotte C (1994). Development of reading-related phonological processing abilities: New evidence of bidirectional causality from a latent variable longitudinal study . Developmental Psychology , 30 , 73–87. 10.1037/0012-1649.30.1.73 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wanzek J, Vaughn S, Scammacca N, Gatlin B, Walker MA, & Capin P (2016). Meta-analyses of the effects of Tier 2 type reading interventions in grades K-3 . Educational Psychology Review , 28 , 551–576. 10.1007/s10648-015-9321-7 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wanzek J, Vaughn S, Scammacca NK, Metz K, Murray CS, Roberts G, & Danielson L (2013). Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after Grade 3 . Review of Educational Research , 83 , 163–195. 10.3102/0034654313477212 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wasik BA, & Hindman AH (2020). Increasing preschoolers’ vocabulary development through a streamlined teacher professional development intervention . Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 50 , 101–113. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.11.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Welsch JG, Powell JJ, & Robnolt VJ (2019). Getting to the core of close reading: What do we really know and what remains to be seen? Reading Psychology , 40 ( 1 ), 95–116. 10.1080/02702711.2019.1571544 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Whitehurst GJ & Lonigan CJ (1998). Child development and emergent literacy . Child Development , 69 , 848–872. 10.2307/1132208 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams JP, Pollini S, Nubla-Kung AM, Snyder AE, Garcia A, Ordynans JG, & Atkins JG (2014). An intervention to improve comprehension of cause/effect through expository text structure instruction . Journal of Educational Psychology , 106 , 1–17. doi: 10.1037/a0033215 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ziegler J, & Goswami U (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory . Psychological Bulletin , 131 ( 1 ), 3–29. 10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.3 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ziegler J, Stone G, & Jacobs A (1997). What is the pronunciation for –ough and the spelling for /u/? A database for computing feedforward and feedback consistence in English . Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers , 29 ( 4 ), 600–618. 10.3758/BF03210615 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zipke M (2016). The importance of flexibility of pronunciation in learning to decode: A training study in set for variability . First Language , 36 ( 1 ), 71–86. doi: 10.1177/0142723716639495 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Research and teaching writing

• Published: 12 July 2021
• Volume 34 , pages 1613–1621, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Steve Graham 1 , 2 &
• Rui A. Alves 3  

11k Accesses

14 Citations

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Writing is an essential but complex skill that students must master if they are to take full advantage of educational, occupational, and civic responsibilities. Schools, and the teachers who work in them, are tasked with teaching students how to write. Knowledge about how to teach writing can be obtained from many different sources, including one’s experience teaching or being taught to write, observing others teach writing, and advise offered by writing experts. It is difficult to determine if much of the lore teachers acquire through these methods are effective, generalizable, or reliable unless they are scientifically tested. This special issue of Reading & Writing includes 11 writing intervention studies conducted primarily with students in the elementary grades. It provides important new information on evidence-based writing practices.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

There are many different ways that teachers can learn about how to teach writing. One way of acquiring such knowledge is by teaching this skill to others. As teachers apply different instructional procedures, they form judgments about the value and efficacy of these practices. In essence, they learn by doing (Graham, 2018 ).

A second way teachers learn about how to teach writing is by observing others and learning from them (Graham, 2018 ). Teachers likely remember some of the instructional methods used by those who taught them to write (e.g., teachers, mentors, parents, guardians, and peers). They may in turn adopt some of these practices when they teach their own students. This may be particularly true for instructional practices they considered effective.

Teachers can gain additional insight into teaching writing by observing and absorbing insights offered by others who have taught writing or studied how to teach it. This includes knowledge acquired from instructors teaching literacy and writing courses as well as experts offering advice on writing instruction at conferences, through workshops, podcasts, or other forms of information sharing. Teachers may also learn about teaching writing by discussing this topic with their peers or observing them as they teach writing.

A third source of knowledge that teachers can access are published materials about how to teach writing. This includes textbooks and articles on the subject, curriculum guides, commercial materials, and position statements from professional organizations to provide just a few examples. These resources can further involve digital sources such as videos demonstrating how to apply specific writing procedures, experts promoting specific teaching techniques, or web sites devoted to writing instruction.

The concern

Given all of the possible knowledge sources teachers can access or experience, there is an abundance of information, recommendations, and teaching materials on how to teach writing that is available to teachers. This blessing experiences at least one serious limitation. Too often, there is limited, circumscribed, or no evidence that the proffered advice, know-how, or wisdom works. There are many claims about what is effective, but too little proof. Unfortunately, this observation applies to much of the lore that teachers acquire about writing instruction.

Teaching lore mainly involves writing practices teachers experienced when they learned to write, instructional practices teachers develop and apply with their students, writing practices they see other teachers apply, and teaching practices promoted by experts (Graham & Harris, 2014 ). While we have no doubt that teachers and experts possess considerable knowledge and insight about how to teach writing, basing the teaching of this complex skill on such lore alone is risky.

Why is this the case? One reason is that it is difficult to determine which aspects of teaching lore are valid. For example, there are many things a teacher does while teaching writing. When their students’ writing improves, they may attribute this change to specific procedures they applied. While this evaluation may be correct, it is also possible that this judgment is incorrect or only applies to some students or to a procedure in a given context.

Teachers are not the only ones who can succumb to such selective bias. Specific teaching lore promoted by writing experts are also susceptible to misinterpretation in terms of their effectiveness. To illustrate, writing experts can overestimate the impact of favored instructional methods, forming judgments consistent with their philosophical views on writing development or instruction. For instance, proponents of the whole language approach to learning to read and write believed that writing and reading develop naturally just like oral language (Goodman, 1992 ). Consistent with these beliefs, they championed an approach to literacy instruction based on the use of informal teaching methods (e.g., reading and writing for real purposes), while at the same time deemphasizing explicitly and systematically teaching students foundational writing and reading skills and strategies (Graham & Harris, 1997 ). Instead, these skills are only taught when the need arises, mostly through short mini-lessons. Advocates for whole language frequently promoted the effectiveness of this two-pronged approach (Begeron, 1990 ), without providing much in the way of empirical evidence that it was effective, or perhaps even more importantly, that it was as effective as other alternatives such as reading and writing programs that emphasized reading and writing for real purposes, coupled with systematic and explicit skills and strategy instruction (Graham & Harris, 1994 ). Even for fundamental writing skills such as spelling, there is considerable evidence that both informal teaching and explicit instruction are effective (Graham, 2000 ; Graham & Santangelo, 2014 ), while whole language approaches are fundamentally misguided about what is written language (Liberman, 1999 ).

Whole language is not the only approach to teaching writing that has suffered from questionable claims about its effectiveness. Even the venerable Donald Graves was guilty of this to some degree with the process approach to writing that he supported and advocated (see Smagorinski, 1987 ). The evidence he offered in support of his favored approach to teaching writing relied in large part on testimonials and exemplar writing of selected students, presenting a potentially overly optimistic assessment of this approach. This is not to say that the process approach is ineffective, as there is now considerable empirical evidence supporting the opposite conclusion (Sandmel & Graham, 2011 ). Instead, this example illustrates that adopting whole cloth even highly popular and widely used teaching lore without careful consideration of its effectiveness and the evidence available to support it can be risky. The lack of evidence or the type of evidence provided can make it extremely difficult for teachers or other interested parties to determine if the testimonials or evidence used to support specific teaching lore in writing are representative or atypical.

A third issue that makes some teaching lore risky is that it may be based on the experience of a single or a very small number of teachers. As an example, this can occur for knowledge a teacher acquires as a result of his or her experience teaching writing. The teaching practice(s) may in fact be effective for the students in this teacher’s classroom, but they may not be effective when applied by another teacher or with different students. Until this proposition is tested, there is no way to determine if this teaching lore will produce reliable results when applied more broadly.

As these concerns demonstrate, the validity, generalizability, and replicability of instructional practices based on teaching lore are uncertain. This is not to devalue what teachers or experts know, but to demonstrate the limits of this knowledge.

Evidence-based writing practices

The concerns about the value of teaching lore raised above raises the question: How should the structure and details of writing instruction be determined? The solution that we recommend is to take an evidence-based practice approach to both enhance teachers’ knowledge and develop writing instruction. Starting with medicine in the 1990s, and spreading quickly to psychology, informational science, business, education, and a host of other disciplines, this movement promoted the idea that practitioners in a field should apply the best scientific evidence available to make informed and judicious decisions for their clients (Sackett et al., 1996 ). The basic assumption underlying this approach is that the findings from research can positively impact practice. The evidence-based practice movement was a reaction to practitioners basing what they did almost strictly on tradition and lore, without scientific evidence to validate it.

One reason why this represents a positive step forward in education and the teaching of writing is that instructional practices based on high quality intervention research addresses the three issues of concern we raised about teaching lore. First, high quality intervention studies address the issue of validity. They are designed specifically to isolate the effects of a specific instructional practice or set of instructional practices. They provide systematically gathered evidence on whether the instructional practices tested produced the desired impact. They further apply methodological procedures to rule out alternative explanations for observed effects. Second, high quality intervention studies address issues of generalizability by describing the participants and the context in which the practice was applied, and by using statistical procedures to determine the confidence that can be placed in specific findings. Three, they address the issue of replicability, as the replication of effects across multiple situations is the hall mark of scientific testing (Graham & Harris, 2014 ).

Another reason why the evidence-based approach represents a positive step forward in terms of teaching writing is that the evidence gathered from high quality intervention studies can provide a general set of guidelines for designing an effective writing program. Graham et al. ( 2016 ) created such a roadmap by drawing on three sources of scientific evidence: true-and quasi- experimental writing intervention studies, single-case design studies, and qualitative studies of how exceptional literacy teachers taught writing (see also Graham & Harris, 2018 ). They indicated that the scientific evidence from these three sources supports the development of writing programs that include the following. Students write frequently. They are supported by teachers and peers as they write. Essential writing skills, strategies, and knowledge are taught. Students use word processors and other twenty-first century tools to write. Writing occurs in a positive and motivating environment. Writing is used to support learning. Based on several recent meta-analyses of high quality intervention studies (Graham, et al., 2018a , b ; Graham, et al., 2018a , b ), Graham now recommends that the evidence also supports connecting writing and reading instruction (Graham, 2019 , 2020 ).

A third reason why the evidence-based approach is a positive development is that it provides teachers with a variety of techniques for teaching writing that have been shown to be effective in other teachers’ classes and in multiple situations. While this does not guarantee that a specific evidence-based practices is effective in all situations, a highly unlikely proposition for any writing practice, it does provide teachers with instructional procedures with a proven track record. This includes, but is not limited to (Graham & Harris, 2018 ; Graham et al., 2016 ):

Setting goals for writing.

Teaching general as well as genre-specific strategies for planning, revising, editing, and regulating the writing process. Engaging students in prewriting practices for gathering, organizing, and evaluation possible writing contents and plans.

Teaching sentence construction skills with sentence-combining procedures.

Providing students with feedback about their writing and their progress learning new writing skills.

Teaching handwriting, spelling, and typing.

Increasing how much students write; analyzing and emulating model texts.

Teaching vocabulary for writing.

Creating routines for students to help each other as they write.

Putting into place procedures for enhancing motivation.

Teaching paragraph writing skills.

Employing technology such as word processing that makes it easier to write.

It is also important to realize that an evidence-based approach to writing does not mean that teachers should abandon the hard-earned knowledge they have acquired through their experiences as teachers or learners. The evidence-based movement emphasizes that teachers contextualize knowledge about teaching writing acquired through research with their own knowledge about their students, the context in which they work, and what they know about writing and teaching it (Graham et al., 2016 ). When applying instructional practices acquired through research as well as teaching lore, we recommend that teachers weigh the benefits, limitations, and possible harm that might ensue as a consequence of applying any teaching procedure. Once a decision is made to apply a specific practice, it is advisable to monitor its effectiveness and make adjustments as needed.

Finally, while the scientific testing of writing practices has provided considerable insight into how writing can be taught effectively, it is not broad, deep, or rich enough to tell us all we need to know about teaching writing. It is highly unlikely that this will ever be the case. We operate on the principle that there is no single best method for teaching writing to all students, nor is it likely that science will provide us with formulas to prescribe exactly how writing should be taught to each student individually. Writing, learning, children, and the contexts in which they operate are just too complex to make this a likely consequence of the evidence-based movement. As a result, we believe that the best writing instruction will be provided by teachers who apply evidence-based practices in conjunction with the best knowledge they have acquired as teachers and learners, using each of these forms of knowledge in an intelligent, judicious, and critical manner.

Over time, we anticipate that evidence-based practices will play an ever increasing role in the process described above. This is inevitable as our knowledge about evidence-based writing practices expands. This brings us to the purpose of this special issue of Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal . This special issue presents 11 writing intervention studies focusing almost exclusively with students in the elementary grades. These studies were conducted in Europe and the United States, and they replicate and extend prior research conducted with young developing writers.

The special issue

Perhaps the most tested writing instructional practice of all time, and the one yielding the largest effects sizes (Graham et al., 2013 ), is the Self-regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) model developed by Karen Harris (see Harris et al., 2008 for a description of this approach). Several studies in the current special issue tested specific iterations of the use of the SRSD model as a means for teaching writing to elementary grade students. Collins and her colleagues examined the effectiveness of teaching third grade students in the United States task specific strategies for planning and drafting expository essays using information from social studies text using this model. This instruction enhanced the quality of students’ texts and resulted in improvement on a norm-referenced measure of writing where students identified their favorite game and provided reasons why this was the case.

In a second SRSD study conducted with second and third grade children in Spain, Salas and her colleagues examined if teaching planning and drafting strategies for writing an opinion essay was equally effective with children from more and less disadvantaged backgrounds. SRSD was equally effective in improving the opinion writing of children from both backgrounds, but carryover effects to reading comprehension (a skill not taught in this study) only occurred for students from less disadvantaged backgrounds.

A third study by Rosario and his colleagues involved a secondary analysis of data from an investigation in Portugal where third grade students were taught to write narratives using SRSD procedures and a story writing tool they developed. Their reanalysis focused on students experiencing difficulties learning to write showing that they differed in their approach and perceptions of teacher feedback. The majority of these children were able to use the feedback provided by their teacher and viewed it as helpful.

A fourth investigation by Hebert and his colleagues taught fourth grade students in the United States to write informational text using five text structures (description, compare/contrast, sequence of events, problem–solution, and cause effect). While the authors did not indicate they used SRSD to teach these strategies, the teaching methods mirrored this approach. In any event, the instruction provided to these children enhanced how well they wrote all five of these different kinds of text. These effects, however, did not generalize to better reading performance.

Lopez and her colleagues in Spain examined three approaches to improving sixth grade students’ writing. Students in all three conditions were taught how to set communicative goals for their writing. Students in one treatment condition were taught a strategy for revising. Students in a second treatment condition observed a reader trying to comprehend a text and suggesting ways it might be improved. Control students continued with the goal setting procedures. Students in both treatment conditions improved their writing and revising skills more than control students, but there were no differences between these two treatments.

In another Spanish study conducted by Rodriguez-Malaga and colleagues, the impact of two different treatments on the writing of fourth grade students was examined. One treatment group learned how to set product goals for their writing, whereas the other writing treatment group learned how to set product goals and strategies for planning compare/contrast texts. Only the students in the product goal and planning strategy treatment evidenced improved writing when compared to control students.

Philippakos and Voggt examined the effectiveness of on-line practice-based professional development (PBPD) for teaching genre-based writing strategies. Eighty-four second grade teachers were randomly assigned to PBPD or a no-treatment control condition. Treatment teachers taught the genre-based writing strategies with high fidelity and rated PBPD positively. Even more importantly, their students writing evidenced greater improvement than the writing of students in control teachers’ classes.

Walter and her colleagues in England examined the effectiveness of two writing interventions, sentence combining and spelling instruction, with 7 to 10 year old children experiencing difficulties learning to write. As expected, sentence combining instruction improved sentence construction skills, but even more importantly, these researchers found that the degree of improvements in sentence writing was related to students’ initial sentence, spelling, and reading skills.

In another study focused on improving students’ sentence construction skills, Arfé and her colleagues in Italy examined the effectiveness of an oral language intervention to improve the sentence construction skills of fifth and tenth grade students. This oral treatment did enhance the sentence writing skills of the younger fifth grade students. This study provides needed evidence that interventions aimed at improving oral language skills transfer to writing.

Chung and his colleagues in the United States examined if sixth grade students’ writing can be improved through self-assessment, planning and goal setting, and self-reflection when they revised a timed, on-demand essay. These students as well as students in the control condition were also taught how to revise such an essay. Treatment students evidenced greater writing gains, and were more confident about their revising capabilities than control students.

Lastly, Graham and his colleagues in the United States examined if the revising behavior of fourth grade students experiencing difficulties with writing can be enhanced through the use of revising goals that focused attention on making substantive when revising stories (e.g., change the setting of the story). Applying such goals across four stories had a positive effect on the revising behavior of these students when these goals were not in effect, resulting in more text-level revisions, more revisions that changed the meaning of text, and more revisions rated as improving text.

The 11 intervention studies in this special issue of Reading & Writing are particularly noteworthy for several reasons. One, some of these studies ( n  = 4) concentrated on improving students’ skills in writing informational and expository text. This is an area that has not received enough attention in existing writing literature. Two, enhancing students’ revising was the goal of multiple studies ( n  = 4). Again, too little attention has been given to this topic with either younger or older students. Three, it was especially gratifying to see that a pair of studies examined how to enhance sentence writing skills. This has been a neglected area of writing research since the 1980s. Four, multiple studies focused on improving the writing of students who experienced difficulties learning to write ( n  = 3). This is an area where we need much more research if we are to maximize these students’ writing success. Finally, more than half of the studies in this special issue ( n  = 6) were conducted in Europe, with the other half conducted in the United States. It is important to examine if specific writing treatments are effective in different social, cultural, political, institutional, and historical context (Graham, 2018 ), as was done with the four studies that applied SRSD to teach students strategies for writing.

We hope you enjoy the studies presented here. We further hope they serve as a catalyst to improve your own research if you are a writing scholar or your teaching if you are a practitioner.

Begeron, B. (1990). What does the term whole language mean? constructing a definition from the literature. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22 , 301–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862969009547716

Article   Google Scholar  

Goodman, K. (1992). I didn’t found whole language. The Reading Teacher, 46 , 188–199.

Google Scholar  

Graham, S. (2000). Should the natural learning approach replace traditional spelling instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92 , 235–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.2.235

Graham, S. (2018). The writer(s)-within-community model of writing. Educational Psychologist, 53 , 258–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1481406

Graham, S. (2019). Changing how writing is taught. Review of Research in Education, 43 , 277–303. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x18821125

Graham, S. (2020). The sciences of reading and writing must become more fully integrated. Reading Research Quarterly, 55 (S1), S35–S44.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1997). It can be taught, but it does not develop naturally: myths and realities in writing instruction. School Psychology Review, 26 , 414–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1997.12085875

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2014). Conducting high quality writing intervention research: twelve recommendations. Journal of Writing Research, 6 (2), 89–123. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2014.06.02.1

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2018). Evidence-based writing practices: A meta-analysis of existing meta-analyses. In R. Fidalgo, K. R. Harris, & M. Braaksma (Eds.), Design Principles for teaching effective writing: Theoretical and empirical grounded principles (pp. 13–37). Brill Editions.

Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Chambers, A. (2016). Evidence-based practice and writing instruction. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research (2: 211–226). NY; Guilford.

Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & McKeown, D. (2013). The writing of students with LD and a meta-analysis of SRSD writing intervention studies: Redux. In L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of Learning Disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 405–438). Guilford Press.

Graham, S., & Harris, . (1994). The effects of whole language on writing: a review of literature. Educational Psychologist, 29 , 187–192. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2904_2

Graham, S., Liu, K., Aitken, A., Ng, C., Bartlett, B., Harris, K. R., & Holzapel, J. (2018a). Effectiveness of literacy programs balancing reading and writing instruction: a meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 53 , 279–304. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.194

Graham, S., Liu, K., Bartlett, B., Ng, C., Harris, K. R., Aitken, A., Barkel, A., Kavanaugh, C., & Talukdar, J. (2018b). Reading for writing: a meta-analysis of the impact of reading and reading instruction on writing. Review of Educational Research, 88 , 243–284. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317746927

Graham, S., & Santangelo, T. (2014). Does spelling instruction make students better spellers, readers, and writers? a meta-analytic review. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 27 , 1703–1743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-014-9517-0

Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Mason, L., & Friedlander, B. (2008). Powerful writing strategies for all students. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Liberman, A. M. (1999). The reading researcher and the reading teacher need the right theory of speech. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3 (2), 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0302_1

Sackett, D., Rosenberg, W., Gray, J., Haynes, R., & Richardson, W. (1996). Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. British Medical Journal, 312 , 71–72. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71

Sandmel, K., & Graham, S. (2011). The process writing approach: a meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Research, 104 , 396–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2010.488703

Smagorinski, P. (1987). Graves revisited: a look at the methods and conclusions of the New Hampshire study. Written Communication, 4 , 331–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088387004004001

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA

Steve Graham

Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, Australia

University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

Rui A. Alves

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rui A. Alves .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Graham, S., Alves, R.A. Research and teaching writing. Read Writ 34 , 1613–1621 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10188-9

Download citation

Accepted : 29 June 2021

Published : 12 July 2021

Issue Date : September 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10188-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Writing intervention
• Evidence-based
• Elementary grades
• Writing instruction
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

ChatGPT for Teachers

Trauma-informed practices in schools, teacher well-being, cultivating diversity, equity, & inclusion, integrating technology in the classroom, social-emotional development, covid-19 resources, invest in resilience: summer toolkit, civics & resilience, all toolkits, degree programs, trauma-informed professional development, teacher licensure & certification, how to become - career information, classroom management, instructional design, lifestyle & self-care, online higher ed teaching, current events, 5 methods to teach students how to do research papers.

When teaching students how to construct research papers, the scaffolding method is an effective option. This method allows students to research and then organize their information. The scaffold provides understandable support for expository papers. Students greatly benefit from having the majority of the research and proper structure in place before even starting the paper.

With well-prepared references, students are able to:

• Study informational text
• Practice strategies that are genre-specific for expository writing
• Use an inquiry-based approach
• Work individually
• Work collaboratively

The following tips and methodologies build off the initial preparation:

• Students formulate a logical thesis that expresses a perspective on their research subject.
• Students practice their research skills. This includes evaluating their sources, summarizing and paraphrasing significant information, and properly citing their sources.
• The students logically group and then sequence their ideas in expository writing.
•  They should arrange and then display their information on maps, graphs and charts.
• A well-written exposition is focused on the topic and lists events in chronological order.

Formulating a research question

An example research paper scaffold and student research paper should be distributed to students. The teacher should examine these with the students, reading them aloud.

Using the example research paper, discuss briefly how a research paper answers a question. This example should help students see how a question can lead to a literature review, which leads to analysis, research, results and finally, a conclusion.

Give students a blank copy of the research paper Scaffold and explain that the procedures used in writing research papers follow each section of the scaffold. Each of those sections builds on the one before it; describe how each section will be addressed in future sessions.

Consider using Internet research lessons to help students understand how to research using the web.

Have students collect and print at least five articles to help them answer their research question. Students should use a highlighter to mark which sections pertain specifically to their question. This helps students remain focused on their research questions.

The five articles could offer differing options regarding their research questions. Be sure to inform students that their final paper will be much more interesting if it examines several different perspectives instead of just one.

Have students bring their articles to class. For a large class, teachers should have students highlight the relevant information in their articles and then submit them for assessment prior to the beginning of class.

Once identification is determined as accurate, students should complete the Literature Review section of the scaffold and list the important facts from their articles on the lines numbered one through five.

Students need to compare the information they have found to find themes.

Explain that creating a numbered list of potential themes, taken from different aspects proposed in the literature collected, can be used for analysis.

The student’s answer to the research question is the conclusion of the research paper. This section of the research paper needs to be just a few paragraphs. Students should include the facts supporting their answer from the literature review.

Students may want to use the conclusion section of their paper to point out the similarities and/or discrepancies in their findings. They may also want to suggest that further studies be done on the topic.

You may also like to read

• How to Use Reading to Teach ELL Students
• Web Research Skills: Teaching Your Students the Fundamentals
• How to Help Middle School Students Develop Research Skills
• Five Free Websites for Students to Build Research Skills
• How to Help High School Students with Career Research
• Students Evaluating Teachers: What Educators Need to Know

Categorized as: Tips for Teachers and Classroom Resources

Tagged as: Assessment Tools

• COVID-19 Teacher Toolkit: Resilience Through ...
• Online & Campus Master's in Education Leaders...
• Early Childhood Education: Resources, Theorie...

Schools are using research to try to improve children’s learning – but it’s not working

Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Teachers and Teaching Research, UCL

Disclosure statement

Sally Riordan is currently working on two projects that receive funding from the Education Endowment Foundation.

University College London provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation UK.

View all partners

Evidence is obviously a good thing. We take it for granted that evidence from research can help solve the post-lockdown crises in education – from how to keep teachers in the profession to how to improve behaviour in schools, get children back into school and protect the mental health of a generation.

But my research and that of others shows that incorporating strategies that have evidence backing them into teaching doesn’t always yield the results we want.

The Department for Education encourages school leadership teams to cite evidence from research studies when deciding how to spend school funding. Teachers are more frequently required to conduct their own research as part of their professional training than they were a decade ago. Independent consultancies have sprung up to support schools to bring evidence-based methods into their teaching.

This push for evidence to back up teaching methods has become particularly strong in the past ten years. The movement has been driven by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF), a charity set up in 2011 with funding from the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government to provide schools with information about which teaching methods and other approaches to education actually work.

The EEF funds randomised controlled trials – large-scale studies in which students are randomly assigned to an educational initiative or not and then comparisons are then made to see which students perform better. For instance, several of these studies have been carried out in which some children received one-on-one reading sessions with a trained classroom assistant, and their reading progress was compared to children who had not. The cost of one of these trials was around £500,000 over the course of a year.

Trials such as this in education were lobbied for by Ben Goldacre , a doctor and data scientist who wrote a report in 2013 on behalf of the Department for Education. Goldacre suggested that education should follow the lead of medicine in the use of evidence.

Using evidence

In 2023, however, researchers at the University of Warwick pointed out something that should have been obvious for some time but has been very much overlooked – that following the evidence is not resulting in the progress we might expect.

Reading is the most heavily supported area of the EEF’s research, accounting for more than 40% of projects . Most schools have implemented reading programmes with significant amounts of evidence behind them. But, despite this, reading abilities have not changed much in the UK for decades.

This flatlining of test scores is a global phenomenon . If reading programmes worked as the evidence says they do, reading abilities should be better.

And the evidence is coming back with unexpected results. A series of randomised controlled trials, including one looking at how to improve literacy through evidence , have suggested that schools that use methods based on research are not performing better than schools that do not.

In fact, research by a team at Sheffield Hallam University have demonstrated that on average, these kinds of education initiatives have very little to no impact .

My work has shown that when the findings of different research studies are brought together and synthesised, teachers may end up implementing these findings in contradictory ways. Research messages are frequently too vague to be effective because the skills and expertise of teaching are difficult to transfer.

It is also becoming apparent that the gains in education are usually very small, perhaps because learning is the sum total of trillions of interactions. It is possible that the research trials we really need in education would be so vast that they are currently too impractical to do.

It seems that evidence is much harder to tame and to apply sensibly in education than elsewhere. In my view, it was inevitable and necessary that educators had to follow medicine in our search for answers. But we now need to think harder about the peculiarities of how evidence works in education.

Right now, we don’t have enough evidence to be confident that evidence should always be our first port of call.

• Young people
• Department for Education

Research Fellow – Beyond The Resource Curse

Audience Development Coordinator (fixed-term maternity cover)

Lecturer (Hindi-Urdu)

Director, Defence and Security

Opportunities with the new CIEHF

The New Classroom Instruction That Works: The Best Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement Has Arrived!

The highest-quality research distilled into 14 proven-to-work strategies.

November 30, 2022—ASCD, the nation’s leading association for K–12 educator professional development, announced the publication of The New Classroom Instruction That Works: The Best Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement , copublished with McREL International . Authored by Bryan Goodwin and Kristin Rouleau, the new streamlined edition distills McREL’s comprehensive review and analysis of hundreds of scientific studies into 14 easy-to-implement and proven instructional strategies that yield significant positive effects for a diverse array of students.

Rigorous, Up-to-Date Research Translated into Effective Classroom Practices

Over the past two decades, education research has evolved significantly, creating a growing collection of studies that employ scientific methods to measure the true impact of various teaching and learning strategies on student outcomes. Authors Bryan Goodwin and Kristin Rouleau, along with Cheryl Abla, Karen Baptiste, Tonia Gibson, and Michele Kimball, started from scratch, taking a fresh look at what a new generation of research tells us about effective teaching and which practices all teachers should build into their professional repertoire. The result is a streamlined set of teaching strategies that are practical, straightforward, focused on what works, and powered by updated research that represents today’s highly diverse classrooms.

14 Streamlined Instructional Strategies Proven to Promote Deep, Meaningful, and Lasting Learning

Although this book is grounded in evidence-based research, it’s been translated into practical guidance to apply in the classroom—blending the science of teaching with the science of learning. It distills the highest-quality and most inclusive research findings into a set of 14 teaching strategies, giving both new and veteran teachers a clear idea of what to do, when to do it, and why. These strategies—all of which are effective and complementary and focused on what works—are presented within a framework geared toward planning for student learning and aligned with how the brain learns.

The chapters are organized according to the six phases of learning identified in Learning That Sticks (Goodwin et al., 2020). Each chapter offers a brief overview of the phase and the cognitive science behind it, then shares the teaching strategies aligned with that phase of learning. The last chapter brings it all together for educators with suggestions on how to embed these strategies into professional practices to ensure the success of every learner.

About the Authors

Bryan Goodwin is the president and CEO of McREL International, a Denver-based nonprofit education research and development organization. Goodwin, a former teacher and award-winning business journalist, has been at McREL for more than 20 years, serving previously as chief operating officer and director of communications and marketing. Goodwin writes a monthly research column for Educational Leadership and presents research findings and insights to audiences across the United States and in Canada, the Middle East, and Australia.

Kristin Rouleau is the vice president of learning services at McREL, where she works with schools, districts, and state DOEs as they navigate change and implement practices and structures to increase student achievement. Rouleau is a licensed school administrator with more than 25 years of experience in education, working in a variety of racially and culturally diverse communities. She has served as a classroom teacher, curriculum specialist, elementary school principal, and district-level curriculum administrator.

For more information on The New Classroom Instruction That Works , visit the McREL bookstore .

• About McREL

McREL International is a nonprofit education research, development, and service organization that helps schools, districts, and education agencies across the U.S. and around the world improve outcomes for all students. Headquartered in Denver, McREL has regional offices in Hawai‘i, Wyoming, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Republic of Palau. McREL’s researchers, program evaluators, and education consultants help schools, districts, and state agencies analyze data, assess performance, identify and address root causes of challenges, and support the professional growth and capacity building of teachers and leaders to make an even bigger difference for every student.

ASCD is a passionate community of life-changing educators. Our community is empowered to be equity and instructional warriors who transform vision into practice. For 75 years, we have worked side by side with educators from every level in all 50 states and more than 200 countries to help them find their people and amplify their voices to reach many. Our professional learning services let educators chart their own learning journey, as educators, and as leaders, so they and their students can flourish. Learn more at  www.ascd.org and visit ASCD’s virtual learning community  to view a full slate of educator professional learning opportunities and conferences.

About McREL.org

McREL is a non-profit, non-partisan education research and development organization that since 1966 has turned knowledge about what works in education into practical, effective guidance and training for teachers and education leaders across the U.S. and around the world.

Previous Post Three Effective Teaching Strategies to Support Equitable Learning Outcomes

Next post going slow to go fast, with best first instruction.

• McREL CATALOG
• ABOUT McREL
• Who We Are—McREL Staff
• McREL Catalog
• School & System Improvement
• Balanced Leadership
• Classroom Instruction That Works
• Curiosity Works
• Curriculum & Standards
• Personnel Evaluation
• Power Walkthrough
• Student Learning That Sticks
• Research Partnerships
• Research Reports
• White Papers
• Ed-Tech Evaluation
• PD Courses & Events
• FREE RESOURCES
• Subscribe to Free Resources
• Success Stories
• Compendium of Standards

Search McREL.org

© 2024 McREL International. @2023 Mcrel International | Powered by NEWMEDIA

• Equal Employment Opportunity
• Learning That Sticks
• Multilingual and English Learners
• Research & Evaluation
• Free Videos
• In-Person Events
• for Teachers
• for Principals
• REL Pacific
• CC Region 11
• CC Region 12

Read our research on: Gun Policy | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

What’s it like to be a teacher in america today, public k-12 teachers are stressed about their jobs and few are optimistic about the future of education; many say poverty, absenteeism and mental health are major problems at their school.

Pew Research Center conducted this study to better understand the views and experiences of public K-12 school teachers. The analysis in this report is based on an online survey of 2,531 U.S. public K-12 teachers conducted from Oct. 17 to Nov. 14, 2023. The teachers surveyed are members of RAND’s American Teacher Panel, a nationally representative panel of public K-12 school teachers recruited through MDR Education. Survey data is weighted to state and national teacher characteristics to account for differences in sampling and response to ensure they are representative of the target population.

Here are the questions used for this report , along with responses, and the survey methodology .

Low-poverty , medium-poverty and high-poverty schools are based on the percentage of students eligible for free and reduced-price lunch, as reported by the National Center for Education Statistics (less than 40%, 40%-59% and 60% or more, respectively).

Secondary schools include both middle schools and high schools.

All references to party affiliation include those who lean toward that party. Republicans include those who identify as Republicans and those who say they lean toward the Republican Party. Democrats include those who identify as Democrats and those who say they lean toward the Democratic Party.

Public K-12 schools in the United States face a host of challenges these days – from teacher shortages to the lingering effects of COVID-19 learning loss to political battles over curriculum .

In the midst of all this, teachers express low levels of satisfaction with their jobs. In fact, they’re much less satisfied than U.S. workers overall.

Here’s how public K-12 teachers are feeling about their jobs:

• 77% say their job is frequently stressful.
• 68% say it’s overwhelming.
• 70% say their school is understaffed.
• 52% say they would not advise a young person starting out today to become a teacher.

When it comes to how their students are doing in school, teachers are relatively downbeat about both academic performance and behavior.

Here’s how public K-12 teachers rate academic performance and behavior at their school:

• 48% say the academic performance of most students at their school is fair or poor. A third say it’s good, and only 17% describe it as excellent or very good.
• 49% say the behavior of most students at their school is fair or poor; 35% say it’s good and 13% say it’s excellent or very good.

The COVID-19 pandemic likely compounded these issues. About eight-in-ten teachers (among those who have been teaching for at least a year) say the lasting impact of the pandemic on students’ behavior, academic performance and emotional well-being has been very or somewhat negative.

Assessments of student performance and behavior differ widely by school poverty level. 1 Teachers in high-poverty schools have a much more negative outlook. But feelings of stress and dissatisfaction among teachers are fairly universal, regardless of where they teach.

Related: What Public K-12 Teachers Want Americans To Know About Teaching

As they navigate these challenges, teachers don’t feel they’re getting the support or reinforcement they need from parents.

Majorities of teachers say parents are doing too little when it comes to holding their children accountable if they misbehave in school, helping them with their schoolwork and ensuring their attendance.

Teachers in high- and medium-poverty schools are more likely than those in low-poverty schools to say parents are doing too little in each of these areas.

These findings are based on a survey of 2,531 U.S. public K-12 teachers conducted Oct. 17-Nov. 14, 2023, using the RAND American Teacher Panel. 2 The survey looks at the following aspects of teachers’ experiences:

• Teachers’ job satisfaction (Chapter 1)
• How teachers manage their workload (Chapter 2)
• Problems students are facing at public K-12 schools (Chapter 3)
• Challenges in the classroom (Chapter 4)
• Teachers’ views of parent involvement (Chapter 5)
• Teachers’ views on the state of public K-12 education (Chapter 6)

Problems students are facing

We asked teachers about some of the challenges students at their school are facing. Three problems topped the list:

• Poverty (53% say this is a major problem among students who attend their school)
• Chronic absenteeism (49%)
• Anxiety and depression (48%)

Chronic absenteeism (that is, students missing a substantial number of school days) is a particular challenge at high schools, with 61% of high school teachers saying this is a major problem where they teach. By comparison, 46% of middle school teachers and 43% of elementary school teachers say the same.

Anxiety and depression are viewed as a more serious problem at the secondary school level: 69% of high school teachers and 57% of middle school teachers say this is a major problem among their students, compared with 29% of elementary school teachers.

Fewer teachers (20%) view bullying as a major problem at their school, though the share is significantly higher among middle school teachers (34%).

A look inside the classroom

We also asked teachers how things are going in their classroom and specifically about some of the issues that may get in the way of teaching.

• 47% of teachers say students showing little or no interest in learning is a major problem in their classroom. The share rises to 58% among high school teachers.
• 33% say students being distracted by their cellphones is a major problem. This is particularly an issue for high school teachers, with 72% saying this is a major problem.
• About one-in-five teachers say students getting up and walking around when they’re not supposed to and being disrespectful toward them (21% each) are major problems. Teachers in elementary and middle schools are more likely than those in high schools to see these as challenges.

A majority of teachers (68%) say they’ve experienced verbal abuse from a student – such as being yelled at or threatened. Some 21% say this happens at least a few times a month.

Physical violence is less common. Even so, 40% of teachers say a student has been violent toward them , with 9% saying this happens at least a few times a month.

About two-thirds of teachers (66%) say that the current discipline practices at their school are very or somewhat mild. Only 2% say the discipline practices at their school are very or somewhat harsh, while 31% say they are neither harsh nor mild. Most teachers (67%) say teachers themselves don’t have enough influence in determining discipline practices at their school.

Behavioral issues and mental health challenges

In addition to their teaching duties, a majority of teachers (58%) say they have to address behavioral issues in their classroom every day. About three-in-ten teachers (28%) say they have to help students with mental health challenges daily.

In each of these areas, elementary and middle school teachers are more likely than those at the high school level to say they do these things on a daily basis.

And teachers in high-poverty schools are more likely than those in medium- and low-poverty schools to say they deal with these issues each day.

Cellphone policies and enforcement

Most teachers (82%) say their school or district has policies regarding cellphone use in the classroom.

Of those, 56% say these policies are at least somewhat easy to enforce, 30% say they’re difficult to enforce, and 14% say they’re neither easy nor difficult to enforce.

Experiences with cellphone policies vary widely across school levels. High school teachers (60%) are much more likely than middle school (30%) and elementary school teachers (12%) to say the policies are difficult to enforce (among those who say their school or district has a cellphone policy).

How teachers are experiencing their jobs

Thinking about the various aspects of their jobs, teachers are most satisfied with their relationship with other teachers at their school (71% are extremely or very satisfied).

They’re least satisfied with how much they’re paid – only 15% are extremely or very satisfied with their pay, while 51% are not too or not at all satisfied.

Among teachers who don’t plan to retire or stop working this year, 29% say it’s at least somewhat likely they will look for a new job in the 2023-24 school year. Within that group, 40% say they would look for a job outside of education, 29% say they’d seek a non-teaching job in education, and only 18% say they’d look for a teaching job at another public K-12 school.

Do teachers find their work fulfilling and enjoyable?

Overall, 56% of teachers say they find their job to be fulfilling extremely often or often; 53% say their job is enjoyable. These are significantly lower than the shares who say their job is frequently stressful (77%) or overwhelming (68%).

Positive experiences are more common among newer teachers. Two-thirds of those who’ve been teaching less than six years say their work is fulfilling extremely often or often, and 62% of this group says their work is frequently enjoyable.

Teachers with longer tenures are somewhat less likely to feel this way. For example, 48% of those who’ve been teaching for six to 10 years say their work is frequently enjoyable.

Balancing the workload

Most teachers (84%) say there’s not enough time during their regular work hours to do tasks like grading, lesson planning, paperwork and answering work emails.

Among those who feel this way, 81% say simply having too much work is a major reason.

Many also point to having to spend time helping students outside the classroom, performing non-teaching duties like lunch duty, and covering other teachers’ classrooms as at least minor reasons they don’t have enough time to get all their work done.

A majority of teachers (54%) say it’s very or somewhat difficult for them to balance work and their personal life. About one-in-four (26%) say it’s very or somewhat easy for them to balance these things, and 20% say it’s neither easy nor difficult.

Among teachers, women are more likely than men to say work-life balance is difficult for them (57% vs. 43%). Women teachers are also more likely to say they often find their job stressful or overwhelming.

How teachers view the education system

A large majority of teachers (82%) say the overall state of public K-12 education has gotten worse in the past five years.

And very few are optimistic about the next five years: Only 20% of teachers say public K-12 education will be a lot or somewhat better five years from now. A narrow majority (53%) say it will be worse.

Among teachers who think things have gotten worse in recent years, majorities say the current political climate (60%) and the lasting effects of the COVID-19 pandemic (57%) are major reasons. A sizable share (46%) also point to changes in the availability of funding and resources.

Related:  About half of Americans say public K-12 education is going in the wrong direction

Which political party do teachers trust more to deal with educational challenges?

On balance, more teachers say they trust the Democratic Party than say they trust the Republican Party to do a better job handling key issues facing the K-12 education system. But three-in-ten or more across the following issues say they don’t trust either party:

• Shaping school curriculum (42% say they trust neither party)
• Ensuring teachers have adequate pay and benefits (35%)
• Making schools safer (35%)
• Ensuring adequate funding for schools (33%)
• Ensuring all students have equal access to high-quality K-12 education (31%)

A majority of public K-12 teachers (58%) identify or lean toward the Democratic Party. This is higher than the share among the general public (47%).

• Poverty levels are based on the percentage of students in the school who are eligible for free and reduced-price lunch. ↩
• For details, refer to the Methodology section of the report. ↩
• Urban, suburban and rural schools are based on the location of the school as reported by the National Center for Education Statistics (rural includes town). Definitions match those used by the U.S. Census Bureau. ↩

Social Trends Monthly Newsletter

Sign up to to receive a monthly digest of the Center's latest research on the attitudes and behaviors of Americans in key realms of daily life

Report Materials

Table of contents, ‘back to school’ means anytime from late july to after labor day, depending on where in the u.s. you live, among many u.s. children, reading for fun has become less common, federal data shows, most european students learn english in school, for u.s. teens today, summer means more schooling and less leisure time than in the past, about one-in-six u.s. teachers work second jobs – and not just in the summer, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Nevada Today

Researchers develop innovative method of teaching self-help skills to preschoolers who are deafblind, study demonstrate the effectiveness of system of least prompts (slp) as part of an intervention.

MaryAnn Demchak, Ph.D., BCBA-D, supporting Jill Grattan, Ph.D., as she successfully defended her dissertation for her doctoral degree.

A groundbreaking approach to teaching essential self-help skills to preschoolers who are deafblind has been developed by researchers. Led by MaryAnn Demchak, Ph.D., BCBA-D. , professor of special education at the University of Nevada, Reno, and Jill Grattan, Ph.D. this innovative method employs the System of Least Prompts (SLP) .

“Very little research occurs with students who have severe, multiple disabilities that include deafblindness,” Demchak said. “This study extends prior research to this population and provides teachers and other practitioners with effective educational strategies.”

In their study, the researchers focused on teaching three crucial self-help skills – hand washing, hand drying and entry routines – to preschoolers aged 3 to 5 with vision and hearing impairments, along with multiple disabilities. Remarkably, 75% of the participants showed increased independence in mastering these targeted skills.

Self-help skills play a pivotal role in daily life, impacting health and shaping social acceptance. However, until now, research in this area for deafblind preschoolers with multiple disabilities has been limited.

The findings of this study demonstrate the effectiveness of SLP as part of an intervention package in teaching self-help skills to young children with multiple disabilities, including deafblindness. Although the mastery criterion wasn't universally achieved, the significant increase in independence among 75% of the participants is noteworthy.

“Interacting with the students and seeing their progress as a result of systematic teaching using SLP was very rewarding,” Grattan said.

Preschoolers with multiple disabilities, including deafblindness, often require extensive support in their daily activities. Therefore, any progress toward independence, even with some level of support or modification, is significant. Educators working with this population can now rely on evidence from this study to inform their teaching strategies, particularly emphasizing the effectiveness of SLP.

Jill Grattan, who earned her doctoral degree in Education: Special Education and Disability Studies from the University of Nevada, Reno, has collaborated with Demchak on various research studies focusing on individuals with disabilities.

“It is a privilege to collaborate with current and former doctoral students to make contributions to the field of severe, multiple disabilities, including the area of deafblindness,” Demchak said.

This study offers valuable insights, demonstrating that self-help skills can be effectively taught to deafblind preschoolers. This not only promises to foster healthy habits and well-being but also lays the foundation for future independence, ultimately enhancing the quality of life for both the children and their caregivers.

Research & Innovation

University geothermal research center holds Geothermal Town Hall

The free, public event will share information about geothermal energy production in Nevada

FAA grants civil UAS operations waiver for University operated Nevada Autonomous Test Site

1,000 square-mile test site area in Northern Nevada, first in a series of sites planned for drone research, development, testing

Anthropology doctoral candidate places second in regional Three-Minute Thesis Competition

Kendra Isable represented the University at the Western Association of Graduate Schools annual conference

Senators Rosen, Cortez Masto worked with University President Brian Sandoval to secure more than $4 million for research programs at the University of Nevada, Reno

The funding will support research initiatives across the state

Editor's Picks

A look at careers of substance and impact

NASA astronaut Eileen Collins shares stories at Women in Space event

University of Nevada, Reno and Arizona State University awarded grant to study future of biosecurity

Sagebrushers season 3 ep. 2: Executive Director of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Melanie Duckworth

President Sandoval welcomes new leader who will guide university efforts to enable inclusive excellence for students, faculty and staff

Making their MARC: Yajahira Dircio

Dircio is one of four students in the second MARC cohort

The University of Nevada, Reno Orvis School of Nursing ranks as top nursing program in the country

2023 National Council Licensure Examination (NCLEX®) nursing graduate passing rates place the University at the top of the charts in the state and country

Earth Month events focus on increasing campus sustainably, gardening, thrifting and more

Campus community asked to take the pledge to Make Silver and Blue the New Green

Researchers and students gain new insights and make new connections in Panama

Student participants join researchers to support international conservation efforts

Iranian Culture Celebration event

The first Iranian Culture Celebration Event to be held on April 18, at the University of Nevada, Reno

Faces of the Pack: Viktor Cruz-Calderon

A journey filled with happy mistakes and new adventures, Gilman Scholarship recipient Viktor Cruz-Calderon takes on Spain

Savor the adventure with weekends at the University of Nevada, Reno at Lake Tahoe

Nevada Dining provides delicious meals for the weekend getaway program available for students, faculty and staff

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Computation and Language

Title: realm: reference resolution as language modeling.

Abstract: Reference resolution is an important problem, one that is essential to understand and successfully handle context of different kinds. This context includes both previous turns and context that pertains to non-conversational entities, such as entities on the user's screen or those running in the background. While LLMs have been shown to be extremely powerful for a variety of tasks, their use in reference resolution, particularly for non-conversational entities, remains underutilized. This paper demonstrates how LLMs can be used to create an extremely effective system to resolve references of various types, by showing how reference resolution can be converted into a language modeling problem, despite involving forms of entities like those on screen that are not traditionally conducive to being reduced to a text-only modality. We demonstrate large improvements over an existing system with similar functionality across different types of references, with our smallest model obtaining absolute gains of over 5% for on-screen references. We also benchmark against GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, with our smallest model achieving performance comparable to that of GPT-4, and our larger models substantially outperforming it.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• HTML (experimental)
• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

Our websites may use cookies to personalize and enhance your experience. By continuing without changing your cookie settings, you agree to this collection. For more information, please see our University Websites Privacy Notice .

UConn Today

• School and College News
• Arts & Culture
• Community Impact
• Entrepreneurship
• Health & Well-Being
• Research & Discovery
• UConn Health
• University Life
• UConn Voices
• University News

April 9, 2024 | Jessica McBride, PhD - College of Agriculture, Health and Natural Resources

CAHNR Celebrates Excellence in Teaching, Research, and Community Engagement

Members of the CAHNR community came together March 27, 2024 to recognize the contributions of distinguished alumni, faculty, students, staff, and supporters.

Members of the CAHNR community came together March 27, 2024 to recognize the contributions of distinguished alumni, faculty, students, staff, and supporters (Jason Sheldon/UConn Photo)

“ At some point, you may get tired of me telling you that it was a “record year” for the College . I’m sorry to keep repeat ing myself, but it just keeps happening – you all are just doing too good a job,” joked Dean Indrajeet Chaubey at the College of Agriculture, Health and Natural Resources’ (CAHNR) annual awards and honors celebration.

Members of the CAHNR community came together March 27, 2024 to recognize the contributions of distinguished alumni, faculty, students, staff, and supporters. As Dean Chaubey’s remarks underscored, the College again broke records in research success with $41.5 million in new awards. The College also saw growth in academic success and community engagement through UConn Extension programming.

“ Our faculty and students are tackling challenges that cross departments, cross species, and cross boundaries,” says Chaubey. “ I want to congratulate everyone involved in the College’s success – faculty, staff, students, and partners – for this tremendous, collaborative accomplishment.”    

The event is co-hosted with the College Alumni Board (UCAHNRA) and the CAHNR Excellence Committee, and it provides an opportunity for current students, faculty, and staff to connect with alumni and dedicated volunteers. Award recipients are recognized for their contributions to the university’s tripartite mission areas, as well as CAHNR’s strategic vision and values in areas such as diversity, equity, and inclusion, and embracing UConn’s land grant mission.

Each year as I attend this event, I continue to be impressed to learn about the amazing contributions of our students, faculty, staff and alumni who work tirelessly throughout the year in support of CAHNR and the University’s mission, ” D’Alleva says. “I extend my heartfelt congratulations to all of tonight’s award recipients. Your remarkable achievements reflect the very best of what it means to be part of the University of Connecticut’s College of Agriculture, Health, and Natural Resources.”

2024 Recipients

Early Career Research Award

• James Knighton , Natural Resources and the Environment

Excellence in Research Award

• Ashley Helton , Natural Resources and the Environment

Graduate Student Research and Creativity Award

• Sandeep Poudel , Natural Resources and the Environment
• Christopher Sullivan , Natural Resources and the Environment

Kinsman CAHNR Excellence in Teaching Award

• Sudha Srinivasan  ’14 , Kinesiology

Graduate Student Teaching Award

• Sarah Klionsky , Natural Resources and the Environment

Excellence in Engagement and Outreach Award

• Rebecca Stearns  ’08, ’12 , Kinesiology

Excellence in Extension

• Jennifer Cushman  ’07, ’08, ’12 , UConn 4-H

CES Grant for Innovative Programming in Extension

• Mayra Rodríguez González , Extension

UConn 4-H Alumni Award

• Elaine Pelizzari

UConn 4-H Leadership Award

• Amanda Thomson

Meritorious Service to UConn 4-H Award

• Windham County Agricultural Society

UCAHNRA Outstanding Staff Award

• Camilla Crossgrove , Nutritional Sciences

UCAHNRA Excellence in Teaching Award

• Stephanie Singe  ’00, ’05 , Kinesiology

UCAHNRA Distinguished Alumni Award

• Linda Yamamoto   ’99, ’06, ’10 , Kinesiology

Learn more about the recipients.

Follow  UConn CAHNR  on social media

Recent Articles

April 11, 2024

Advancing Approaches to Physical Therapy

Read the article

19th Century Commonplace Books Show What Was Read and Loved; Poetry as Lived Experience

UConn Magazine: Designing a Take-2 Career