OFLEARNING
SCIENCE
THE
w w w . d e a n s f o r i m p a c t . o r g
www.deansforimpact.org
About
THE SCIENCE OF LEARNING
The purpose of The Science of Learning is to summarize the existing research from cognitive
science related to how students learn, and connect this research to its practical implications
for teaching and learning. This document is intended to serve as a resource to teacher-educators,
new teachers, and anyone in the education profession who is interested in our best scientific
understanding of how learning takes place.
This document identifies six key questions about learning that should be relevant to nearly every
educator. Deans for Impact believes that, as part of their preparation, every teacher-­candidate
should grapple with — and be able to answer — the questions in The Science of Learning. Their
answers should be informed and guided by the existing scientific consensus around basic cognitive
principles. And all educators, including new teachers, should be able to connect these principles to
their practical implications for the classroom (or wherever teaching and learning take place).
The Science of Learning was developed by member deans of Deans for Impact in close
collaboration with Dan Willingham, a cognitive scientist at the University of Virginia,
and Paul Bruno, a former middle-school science teacher. We are greatly indebted to the reviewers
who provided thoughtful feedback and comments on early drafts, including cognitive scientists,
teacher-educators, practicing teachers, and many others.
The Science of Learning does not encompass everything that new teachers should know or be able
to do, but we believe it is part of an important — and evidence-based — core of what educators
should know about learning. Because our scientific understanding is ever evolving, we expect to
periodically revise The Science of Learning to reflect new insights into cognition and learning. We
hope that teachers, teacher-educators, and others will conduct additional research and gather
evidence related to the translation of these scientific principles to practice.
The present version of this document may be cited as:
Deans for Impact (2015). The Science of Learning. Austin, TX: Deans for Impact.
About
DEANS FOR IMPACT
Founded in 2015, Deans for Impact is a national nonprofit organization representing leaders in
educator preparation who are committed to transforming educator preparation and elevating
the teaching profession. The organization is guided by four key principles:
• Data-informed improvement;
• Common outcome measures;
• Empirical validation of effectiveness; and
• Transparency and accountability for results.
More information on the organization and its members
can be found on the Deans for Impact website.
1
Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000
2
Agodini, Harris, Atkins-­Burnett,
Heaviside, Novak, & Murphy, 2009;
TeachingWorks
3
Richland, Zur, & Holyoak, 2007
4
Sweller, 1988
Students learn new ideas by
reference to ideas they already
know.1
•	 A well-­sequenced curriculum is important to ensure that students have the
prior knowledge they need to master new ideas.2
•	 Teachers use analogies because they map a new idea onto one that
students already know. But analogies are effective only if teachers elaborate
on them, and direct student attention to the crucial similarities between
existing knowledge and what is to be learned.3
To learn, students must transfer
information from working
memory (where it is consciously
processed) to long-­term
memory (where it can be
stored and later retrieved).
Students have limited working
memory capacities that can be
overwhelmed by tasks that are
cognitively too demanding.
Understanding new ideas can
be impeded if students are
confronted with too much
information at once.4
Cognitive development does
not progress through a fixed
sequence of age-­related stages.
The mastery of new concepts
happens in fits and starts.8
•	 Teachers can use “worked examples” as one method of reducing students’
cognitive burdens.5
A worked example is a step-­by-­step demonstration of
how to perform a task or solve a problem. This guidance — or “scaffolding”
—­can be gradually removed in subsequent problems so that students are
required to complete more problem steps independently.
•	 Teachers often use multiple modalities to convey an idea; for example, they
will speak while showing a graphic. If teachers take care to ensure that the
two types of information complement one another — such as showing an
animation while describing it aloud — learning is enhanced. But if the two
sources of information are split — such as speaking aloud with different text
displayed visually — attention is divided and learning is impaired.6
•	 Making content explicit through carefully paced explanation, modeling,
and examples can help ensure that students are not overwhelmed.7
(Note: “explanation” does not mean teachers must do all the talking.)
•	 Content should not be kept from students because it is “developmentally
inappropriate.” The term implies there is a biologically inevitable course
of development, and that this course is predictable by age. To answer the
question “is the student ready?” it’s best to consider “has the student
mastered the prerequisites?”9
5
Pashler, Bain, Bottge, Graesser,
Koedinger, & McDaniel, 2007; Kirschner,
Sweller, & Clark, 2006; Atkinson, Derry,
Renkl, & Wortham, 2000; Sweller, 2006
6
Chandler & Sweller, 1992; Moreno &
Mayer, 1999; Moreno, 2006
7
Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006;
TeachingWorks
8
Flynn, O’Malley, & Wood, 2004;
Siegler, 1995
9
Willingham, 2008
HOW DO STUDENTS UNDERSTAND NEW IDEAS?
1
COGNITIVE
PRINCIPLES
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
FOR THE CLASSROOM
THE SCIENCE OF LEARNING
10
Morris, Bransford, & Franks, 1977
11
McDaniel, Hines, Waddill, & Einstein,
1994; Rosenshine, Meister, & Chapman,
1996; Graesser & Olde, 2003;
TeachingWorks
HOW DO STUDENTS LEARN AND RETAIN
NEW INFORMATION?
Information is often
withdrawn from memory just
as it went in. We usually want
students to remember what
information means and why
it is important, so they should
think about meaning when they
encounter to-be-remembered
material.10
•	 Teachers can assign students tasks that require explanation (e.g., answering
questions about how or why something happened) or that require students
to meaningfully organize material. These tasks focus students’ attention on
the meaning of course content.11
•	 Teachers can help students learn to impose meaning on hard-to-remember
content. Stories and mnemonics are particularly effective at helping
students do this.12
Practice is essential to learning
new facts, but not all practice is
equivalent. 13
•	 Teachers can space practice over time, with content being reviewed across
weeks or months, to help students remember that content over the long-
term.14
•	 Teachers can explain to students that trying to remember something makes
memory more long-lasting than other forms of studying. Teachers can use
low- or no-stakes quizzes in class to do this, and students can use
self-tests.15
•	 Teachers can interleave (i.e., alternate) practice of different types of
content. For example, if students are learning four mathematical
operations, it’s more effective to interleave practice of different problem
types, rather than practice just one type of problem, then another type of
problem, and so on.16
12
Peters & Levin, 1986
13
Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Römer,
1993
14
Cepeda, Pashler, Vul, Wixted, & Rohrer,
2006; Pashler, Bain, Bottge, Graesser,
Koedinger, & McDaniel, 2007
15
Agarwal, Bain, & Chamberlain,
2012; Pashler, Bain, Bottge, Graesser,
Koedinger, & McDaniel, 2007
16
Pashler, Bain, Bottge, Graesser,
Koedinger, & McDaniel, 2007; Rohrer,
Dedrick, & Stershic, 2015
2
COGNITIVE
PRINCIPLES
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
FOR THE CLASSROOM
THE SCIENCE OF LEARNING
17
Glaser & Chi, 1988; TeachingWorks
18
National Mathematics Advisory Panel,
2008
Each subject area has some
set of facts that, if committed
to long-term memory, aids
problem-solving by freeing
working memory resources and
illuminating contexts in which
existing knowledge and skills
can be applied. The size and
content of this set varies by
subject matter.17
•	 Teachers will need to teach different sets of facts at different ages. For
example, the most obvious (and most thoroughly studied) sets of facts are
math facts and letter-sound pairings in early elementary grades. For math,
memory is much more reliable than calculation. Math facts (e.g., 8 x 6 = ?)
are embedded in other topics (e.g., long division). A child who stops to
calculate may make an error or lose track of the larger problem.18
The advantages of learning to read by phonics are well established.19
Effective feedback is often
essential to acquiring new
knowledge and skills.20
•	 Good feedback is:
	 Specific and clear;
	 Focused on the task rather than the student; and
	 Explanatory and focused on improvement rather than merely verifying
performance.21
19
National Reading Panel, 2000;
EU High Level Group of Experts on
Literacy, 2012
20
Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Römer,
1993
21
Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Römer,
1993; Shute, 2008; TeachingWorks;
Butler & Winne, 1995; Hattie &
Timperley, 2007
HOW DO STUDENTS SOLVE PROBLEMS?
3
COGNITIVE
PRINCIPLES
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
FOR THE CLASSROOM
THE SCIENCE OF LEARNING
22
Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000;
Pellegrino & Hilton, 2012
23
Pellegrino & Hilton, 2012; Day &
Goldstone, 2012
The transfer of knowledge
or skills to a novel problem
requires both knowledge of the
problem’s context and a deep
understanding of the problem’s
underlying structure.22
•	 Teachers can ensure that students have sufficient background knowledge
to appreciate the context of a problem.23
We understand new ideas via
examples, but it’s often hard
to see the unifying underlying
concepts in different examples.24
•	 Teachers can have students compare problems with different surface
structures that share the same underlying structure. For example,
a student may learn to calculate the area of a rectangle via an example of
word problem using a table top. This student may not immediately recognize
this knowledge is relevant in a word problem that asks a student to calculate
the area of a soccer field. By comparing the problems, this practice helps
students perceive and remember the underlying structure.25
•	 For multi-step procedures, teachers can encourage students to identify and
label the substeps required for solving a problem. This practice makes
students more likely to recognize the underlying structure of the problem
and to apply the problem-solving steps to other problems.26
•	 Teachers can alternate concrete examples (e.g., word problems) and
abstract representations (e.g., mathematical formulas) to help students
recognize the underlying structure of problems. 27
24
Richland, Zur, & Holyoak, 2007;
Ainsworth, Bibby, & Wood, 2002
25
Richland, Zur, & Holyoak, 2007;
Gentner, et al., 2015
26
Catrambone, 1996; Catrambone,
1998
27
Goldstone & Son, 2005; Botge,
Rueda, Serlin, Hung, & Kwon, 2007
HOW DOES LEARNING TRANSFER TO NEW
SITUATIONS IN OR OUTSIDE OF THE CLASSROOM?4
COGNITIVE
PRINCIPLES
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
FOR THE CLASSROOM
THE SCIENCE OF LEARNING
28
Burnette, O’Boyle, VanEpps, Pollack, &
Finkel, 2013
29
Burnette, O’Boyle, VanEpps, Pollack, &
Finkel, 2013; Yeager, Johnson, Spitzer,
Trzesniewski, Powers, & Dweck, 2014
30
Mueller & Dweck, 1998; Blackwell,
Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007; Kamins &
Dweck, 1999
31
Elliott & Dweck, 1988; Smiley &
Dweck, 1994
Beliefs about intelligence are
important predictors of student
behavior in school. 28
•	 Teachers should know that students are more motivated if they believe that
intelligence and ability can be improved through hard work.29
•	 Teachers can contribute to students’ beliefs about their ability to improve
their intelligence by praising productive student effort and strategies (and
other processes under student control) rather than their ability.30
•	 Teachers can prompt students to feel more in control of their learning by
encouraging them to set learning goals (i.e., goals for improvement) rather
than performance goals (i.e., goals for competence or approval).31
Self-determined motivation (a
consequence of values or pure
interest) leads to better longterm
outcomes than controlled
motivation (a consequence
of reward/punishment or
perceptions of self-worth).32
The ability to monitor their own
thinking can help students identify
what they do and do not know,
but people are often unable
to accurately judge their own
learning and understanding.34
Students will be more motivated
and successful in academic
environments when they believe
that they belong and are accepted
in those environments.37
•	 Teachers control a number of factors related to reward or praise that
influence student motivation, such as:
 whether a task is one the student is already motivated to perform;
 whether a reward offered for a task is verbal or tangible;
 whether a reward offered for a task is expected or unexpected;
 whether praise is offered for effort, completion, or quality of performance; and
 whether praise or a reward occurs immediately or after a delay.33
•	 Teachers can engage students in tasks that will allow them to reliably
monitor their own learning (e.g., testing, self-testing, and explanation).35
If not encouraged to use these tasks as a guide, students are likely to make
judgments about their own knowledge based on how familiar their
situation feels and whether they have partial — or related — information.
These cues can be misleading.36
•	 Teachers can reassure students that doubts about belonging are common
and will diminish over time.38
•	 Teachers can encourage students to see critical feedback as a sign of
others’ beliefs that they are able to meet high standards.39
32
Davis, Winsler, & Middleton, 2006
33
Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999; Levitt,
List, & Neckermann, 2012
34
Koriat, 1993
35
Pashler, Bain, Bottge, Graesser,
Koedinger, & McDaniel, 2007; Karpicke,
Butler, & Roediger, 2009
36
Koriat & Levy-Sadot, 2001
37
Yeager, Walton, & Cohen, Addressing
achievement gaps with psychological
interventions, 2013
38
Walton & Cohen, 2011; Yeager,
Walton, & Cohen, Addressing
achievement gaps with psychological
interventions, 2013
39
Yeager, et al., 2014; Cohen, Steele, &
Ross, 1999
WHAT MOTIVATES STUDENTS TO LEARN?
5
COGNITIVE
PRINCIPLES
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
FOR THE CLASSROOM
THE SCIENCE OF LEARNING
40
Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, & Bjork,
2008
41
Boyd, 2008
•	 Students do not have different
“learning styles.”40
•	 Humans do not use only 10%
of their brains.41
•	 People are not preferentially
“right-brained” or “leftbrained”
in the use of their
brains.42
•	 Novices and experts cannot
think in all the same ways.43
•	 Cognitive development
does not progress via a fixed
progression of age-related
stages.44
•	 Teachers should be able to recognize common misconceptions of
cognitive science that relate to teaching and learning.
42
Nielson, Zielinski, Ferguson, Lainhart,
& Anderson, 2013
43
Glaser & Chi, 1988
44
Willingham, 2008
WHAT ARE COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS
ABOUT HOW STUDENTS THINK AND LEARN?6
COGNITIVE
PRINCIPLES
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
FOR THE CLASSROOM
THE SCIENCE OF LEARNING
Agarwal, P. K., Bain, P. M., & Chamberlain,
R. W. (2012). The value of applied
research: Retrieval practice
improves classroom learning and
recommendations from a teacher, a
principal, and a scientist. Educational
Psychology Review, 24(3), 437-448.
Agodini, R., Harris, B., Atkins-Burnett, S.,
Heaviside, S., Novak, T., & Murphy, R.
(2009). Achievement Effects of Four
Early Elementary School Math Curricula:
Findings from First Graders in 39
Schools. NCEE 2009-4052. National
Center for Education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance.
Ainsworth, S., Bibby, P., & Wood, D. (2002).
Examining the Effects of Different
Multiple Representational Systems in
Learning Primary Mathematics. The
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1),
25-61.
Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., &
Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from
Examples: Instructional Principles from
the Worked Examples Research. Review
of Educational Research, 70(2), 181-214.
Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., &
Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of
intelligence predict achievement across
an adolescent transition: A longitudinal
study and an intervention. Child
Development, 78(1), 246-263.
Bottge, B. A., Rueda, E., Serlin, R. C.,
Hung, Y.-H., & Kwon, J. M. (2007).
Shrinking Achievement Differences With
Anchored Math Problems. The Journal
of Special Education, 41(1), 31-49.
Boyd, R. (2008, February 7). Do People
Only Use 10 Percent of Their Brains?
Retrieved March 7, 2015, from
Scientific American: http://www.
scientificamerican.com/article/do-
people-only-use-10-percent-of-their-
brains/
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking,
R. R. (2000). How People Learn:
Brain, Mind, Experience, and School.
Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Burnette, J. L., O’Boyle, E. H., VanEpps, E.
M., Pollack, J. M., & Finkel, E. J. (2013).
Mind-sets matter: A meta-analytics
review of implicit theories and selfregulation.
Psychological Bulletin,
139(3), 655-701.
Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995).
Feedback and self-regulated learning:
A theoretical synthesis. Review of
Educational Research, 65(3), 245-281.
Cameron, J., Banko, K. M., & Pierce, W. D.
(2001). Pervasive negative effects of
rewards on intrinsic motivation: The
myth continues. The Behavior Analyst,
24(1), 1-44.
Catrambone, R. (1996). Generalizing
solution procedures learned from
examples. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 22(4), 1020-1031.
Catrambone, R. (1998). The subgoal
learning model: Creating better
examples so that students can solve
novel problems. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 127(4), 355-376.
Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted,
J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed
Practice in Verbal Recall Tasks: A Review
and Qualitative Synthesis. Psychological
Bulletin, 132(3), 354-380.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The
Split-Attention Effect as a Factor in the
Design of Instruction. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 62(2), 233-246.
Cohen, G., Steele, C., & Ross, L. (1999). The
Mentor’s Dilemma: Providing Critical
Feedback Across the Racial Divide.
Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 25(10), 1302-1318.
Davis, K. D., Winsler, A., & Middleton,
M. (2006). Students’ perceptions of
rewards for academic performance by
parents and teachers: Relations with
achievement and motivation in college.
Journal of Genetic Psychology, 167(2),
211-220.
Day, S. B., & Goldstone, R. L. (2012).
The import of knowledge export:
Connecting findings and theories
of transfer of learning. Educational
Psychologist, 47(3), 153-176.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M.
(1999). A meta-analytic review of
experiments examining the effects of
extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation.
Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627-668.
Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals:
An approach to motivation and
achievement. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54(1), 5-12.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & TeschRömer,
C. (1993). The Role of Deliberate
Practice in the Acquisition of Expert
Performance. Psychological Review,
100(3), 363-406.
EU High Level Group of Experts on Literacy.
(2012). Final Report. Luxembourg:
Publications Office of the European
Union.
Flynn, E., O’Malley, C., & Wood, D. (2004).
A longitudinal, microgenetic study
of the emergence of false belief
understanding and inhibition skills.
Developmental Science, 7(1),
103-115.
Gentner, D., Levine, S. C., Dhillon, S., Ping,
R., Bradley, C., Poltermann, A., et al.
(2015). Rapid learning in a children’s
museum via analogical comparison [in
press]. Cognitive Science.
Glaser, R., & Chi, M. T. (1988). Overview. In
The Nature of Expertise (pp. xv-xxvii).
Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Goldstone, R. L., & Son, J. Y. (2005). The
Transfer of Scientific Principles using
Concrete and Idealized Simulations.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(1),
69-110.
Graesser, A. C., & Olde, B. A. (2003). How
does one know whether a person
understands a device? The quality of
the questions the person asks when
the device breaks down. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 95(3),
524-536.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power
of Feedback. Review of Educational
Research, 77(1), 81-112.
Kamins, M. L., & Dweck, C. S. (1999). Person
versus process praise and criticism:
implications for contingent self-worth
and coping. Developmental Psychology,
35(3), 835-847.
Karpicke, J. D., Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H.
L. (2009). Metacognitive strategies in
student learning: Do students practise
retrieval when they study on their own?
Memory, 17(4), 471-479.
Works Cited
THE SCIENCE OF LEARNING
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E.
(2006). Why Minimal Guidance During
Instruction Does Not Work. Educational
Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Koriat, A. (1993). How do we know that
we know? The accessibility model of
the feeling of knowing. Psychological
Review, 100(4), 609-639.
Koriat, A., & Levy-Sadot, R. (2001). The
combined contributions of the cuefamiliarity
and accessibility heuristics
to feelings of knowing. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 27(1), 34-53.
Levitt, S. D., List, J. A., & Neckermann,
S. S. (2012). The Behavioralist Goes
to School: Leveraging Behavioral
Economics to Improve Educational
Performance (NBER Working Paper,
18165). National Bureau of Economic
Research.
McDaniel, M. A., Hines, R. J., Waddill, P. J., &
Einstein, G. O. (1994). What makes folk
tales unique: Content familiarity, causal
structure, scripts, or superstructures?
Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(1),
169-184.
Moreno, R. (2006). Learning in High-Tech
and Multimedia Environments. Current
Directions in Psychological Science,
15(2), 63-67.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive
Principles of Multimedia Learning: The
Role of Modality and Contiguity. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358-368.
Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J.
J. (1977). Levels of Processing Versus
Transfer Appropriate Processing.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior, 16(5), 519-533.
Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998).
Praise for intelligence can undermine
children’s motivation and performance.
Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 75(1), 33-52.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel.
(2008). Foundations for Success: The
Final Report of the National Mathematics
Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching
Children to Read: Reports of the
Subgroups. National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development.
Nielson, J. A., Zielinski, B. A., Ferguson,
M. A., Lainhart, J. E., & Anderson, J. S.
(2013). An Evaluation of the Left-Brain
vs Right-Brain Hypothesis with Resting
State Functional Connectivity Magnetic
Resonance Imaging. PLOS ONE, 8(8).
Pashler, H., Bain, P. M., Bottge, B. A.,
Graesser, A., Koedinger, K., & McDaniel,
M. (2007). Organizing Instruction and
Study to Improve Student Learning. U.S.
Department of Education. Washington
DC: National Center for Education
Research, Institute of Education
Sciences.
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D.,
& Bjork, R. (2008). Learning Styles:
Concepts and Evidence. Psychological
Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105-
119.
Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (2012).
Education for Life and Work: Developing
Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the
21st Century. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
Peters, E. E., & Levin, J. R. (1986). Effects of
a mnemonic imagery strategy on good
and poor readers’ prose recall. Reading
Research Quarterly, 21(2), 179-192.
Richland, L. E., Zur, O., & Holyoak, K. J.
(2007). Cognitive Supports for Analogies
in the Mathematics Classroom. Science,
316(5828), 1128-1129.
Rohrer, D., Dedrick, R. F., & Stershic, S.
(2015). Interleaved practice improves
mathematics learning. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 107(3), 900-
908.
Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S.
(1996). Teaching Students to Generate
Questions: A Review of the Intervention
Studies. Review of Educational Research,
66(2), 181-221.
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on Formative
Feedback. Review of Educational
Research, 78(1), 153-198.
Siegler, R. S. (1995). How does change
occur: A microgenetic study of number
conservation. Cognitive Psychology,
28(3), 225-273.
Smiley, P. A., & Dweck, C. S. (1994).
Individual differences in achievement
goals among young children. Child
Development, 65(6), 1723-1743.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during
problem solving: Effects on learning.
Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285.
Sweller, J. (2006). The Worked Example
Effect and Human Cognition. Learning
and Instruction, 16(2), 165-169.
Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas,
F. G. (1998). Cognitive Architecture
and Instructional Design. Educational
Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.
TeachingWorks. (n.d.). High-Leverage
Practices. Retrieved March 7, 2015, from
http://www.teachingworks.org/work-of-
teaching/high-leverage-practices
Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2011). A
brief social-belonging intervention
improves academic and health
outcomes of minority students. Science,
331, 1447-1451.
Waterhouse, L. (2006). Multiple
Intelligences, the Mozart Effect, and
Emotional Intelligence: A Critical
Review. Educational Psychologist, 41(4),
207-225.
Willingham, D. T. (2004). Reframing the
Mind: Howard Gardner and the theory
of multiple intelligences. Education
Next, 4(3), 19-24.
Willingham, D. T. (2008, Summer). What is
Developmentally Appropriate Practice?
American Educator, pp. 34-39.
Willingham, D. T. (2009). Why Don’t
Students Like School? San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Yeager, D. S., Johnson, R., Spitzer, B. J.,
Trzesniewski, K. H., Powers, J., & Dweck,
C. S. (2014). The far-reaching effects
of believing people can change:
Implicit theories of personality shape
stress, health, and achievement during
adolescence. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 106(6), 867-884.
Yeager, D., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Garcia, J.,
Apfel, N., Brzustoski, P., Master, A., et al.
(2014). Breaking the Cycle of Mistrust:
Wise Interventions to Provide Critical
Feedback Across the Racial Divide.
Journal of Experimental Psychology,
143(2), 804-824.
Yeager, D., Walton, G., & Cohen, G.
L. (2013, February). Addressing
achievement gaps with psychological
interventions. Phi Delta Kappan,
62-65.
THE SCIENCE OF LEARNING