How Learning Happens: Principles Every Teacher Should Know with Carl Hendrick

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Lori (00:00):
Do you ever feel like you're doing all the right
things, but you're not surewhat's actually helping your
students learn?
You're not alone.
So many teachers are trying tomake sense of what research says
about how learning happens.

Melissa (00:12):
That's what the science of learning is about.
Understanding how studentslearn best.
And in this episode, we'rejoined by professor and author
Carl Hendrick to explore what itis, why it matters, and how it
can make your teaching even moreeffective.

Lori (00:29):
Hi, teacher friends.
I'm Lori.
And I'm Melissa.
We are two educators who wantthe best for all kids, and we
know you do too.

Melissa (00:38):
We worked together in Baltimore when the district
adopted a new literacycurriculum.

Lori (00:43):
We realized there was so much more to learn about how to
teach reading and writing.
Lori and I can't wait to keeplearning with you today.
Hi, Carl.
Welcome to the podcast.
We are so happy to have youtoday.
We've both been following yourwork around how learning happens
and the science of learning.

(01:04):
And we know that teachers areso eager for practical ways to
bring this research to life inthe classroom.
And we know you're the guy totalk to about it.
So welcome to the podcast.

Carl Hendrick (01:14):
Thanks so much for having me.

Melissa (01:16):
Yeah.
So we wanted to talk to youabout, of course, the science of
learning.
And I know that it's a prettycommon term in the UK where you
are, but it's kind of juststarting to gain some momentum
here in the US.
And untotally understandably, Iknow for teachers, they can
hear a phrase like science oflearning.
And it can sound like, here'sanother thing that we have to

(01:38):
do.
And, you know, we're we've justgotten on board with the
science of reading, and that'sbeen such a big focus.
And now we have anotherscience.
Um, but Carl, I'm wondering ifyou can help us understand what
is the science of learning andhow can it really support
teachers in the work they'realready doing and not feel like
this burden of another thing tothink about?

Yeah, so it's a sort of an umbrella term that
refers to a branch of differentdisciplines.
And you're talking aboutcognitive psychology, uh,
neuroscience, educationpsychology, but I guess probably
the one that is most useful toteachers is the branch of

(02:18):
cognitive science that reallyzooms in on how do we encounter,
store, encode, retrieveknowledge and information.
And so, you know, for me, Ithink teaching is almost an
unhelpful term because it's akind of an impossible task.
When you talk about teaching,you're not just you're talking

(02:39):
about curriculum design,instruction, assessment, and
then there's the wholesocio-emotional aspect of how do
you deal with kids.
It's almost so big as to bevery difficult to define.
So the science of learning forme is isolating variables that
can be measured in some capacityand then can provide um

(03:04):
teachers with very real guidanceon you know what they can do or
or to help them to be betterdecision makers in in their
classrooms.
And I think where the scienceof learning is uh, I suppose
empowering for teachers is thatit's really not a sort of set of

(03:26):
stone tablets that you knowthis has to work here and that
has to work there.
For me, there's a sort ofparadox with it, which is that
you kind of know all this stuff,and then in that moment, you're
making decisions based upon arange of factors.
But you're gonna make fivedecisions this way, five
decisions that way.

(03:46):
All of these are probably gooddecisions, and all of these are
bad ones.
And really, it's about enablingteachers to sort of have some
kind of clarity on what theyshould do.
John Swiller said withoutunderstanding cognitive
architecture, instruction isblind.
In other words, if you're adoctor and you don't understand
human biology, then how are yougonna A diagnose what's wrong

(04:10):
with a person and then B helpthem or prescribe medicine or or
you know perform surgery?
So it's this idea that um, ofcourse, there's no assurances,
but there are things that we cankind of hang our hats on.

Lori (04:24):
I can't wait to talk to you more about those things we
can hang our hats on today.
Um, but I do want to talk aboutone quote you've said that it
stood stood out to us, and Ithink it applies here.
You said the science oflearning is about probabilities,
not prescriptions.
And I think that's what you'retalking about.
It's not, you know, a set ofrules on these, you know, stones

(04:45):
and it's like check, check,check.
Um, it's not a checklist for,you know, teachers or educators
to follow, or even, I mean, dareI say it, leaders to walk in
and have a checklist and belike, oh, okay, they're doing
the science of learning.
Like that's not what we'retalking about here.
So can you talk a little bitabout what that means?

So I think teaching is really a um
probabilistic enterprise in thesense that stuff that works, I
mean, let's let's take it allthe way back.
So, where does the science comefrom?
Most of it is done in alaboratory with postgraduate
students.
And so when we when we want todefine, well, how how many
things can you hold in yourworking memory?

(05:25):
Now we've known that since the1950s with the work of George
Miller.
That's probably the GeorgeMiller, this is like the first
thing that you need to knowabout learning, I think.
Like how many items orelements?
If you if you How many?
Yeah, well, his magical numberwas seven.

Lori (05:41):
But we now think Okay, that's what I was gonna say.
I just had some academicnumber, right?
Yeah, I just like looked atsome academic testing
statistics, and I they saidbetween seven and eight.

Well, we now think it's near four.
So Cowan's work in around 2000.
Oh yeah, because he looked atthose studies, and it's slightly
complicated because when we saythings or stuff or items or
elements, they're not neutral.
So sure, if you're givingsomeone like how many plates can
you hold, the plates are equalthings.

(06:11):
But if you're giving someone,you know, items of knowledge,
well, did you know them before?
Are they totally brand new?
Are they totally, you know?
But I would say in general, weare asking kids every day,
here's something new.
You got it?
Yes.
Okay, here's another new thing.
Have you got that too?
Yep.

(06:31):
Here's a third new thing.
How are you doing with that?
Uh yeah, okay.
Uh you know, here's anotherone.
Uh, what was the first oneagain?
So that's like the what kind ofthe sort of like one-on-one of
instructional design for me.
Like without really thinkingabout that, we're not kind of
taking into account how thebrain kind of functions or

(06:54):
operates.
So they're the nearest thing wehave to a set of laws.
Like there, it's you can't hold15 items, you know, unless, and
here's the other thing, it'sreally dependent on what's your
lot in your long-term memory.
And I'm doing it right now.
As I'm talking to you, I'mthinking about all these

(07:17):
concepts and terms, but if I hadto speak in Spanish, that would
slow right down, and I'd haveto, you know, what I'd be trying
to wrestle with new things.
So those those kind of thingsare important because it means
you're, and for me, that's wherethe science of learning becomes
an empathetic thing.
You're taking into account thethe limitations of kids, and

(07:40):
you're saying, look, and what Ilove about really good
instructional design, it says,is that it says, if the kid that
hasn't learned it, it's nottheir fault, it's our fault
because we didn't design itproperly.
And we know that we can designthings.
And you know, you guys arereally in the weeds working,
really thinking hard aboutreading instruction, phonemic

(08:01):
awareness.
Like we have, I'm in awe ofthat field because it's so
systematic.
It's so kind of like we have apretty good sense now of like if
you want to get a five-year-oldto read, these steps are, you
know, this is where theprobability comes in.
If you do these things, thechances are, like most kids,

(08:23):
they're gonna learn how to read.
And the ones that don't, wewill meet their needs, we'll
find the support.
If you are getting kids toguess words by pictures or um uh
you know, three queuing, you'reyou're you're giving the
impression of learning, and it'sit's the probability is they're

(08:44):
not going to be able toindependently decode words and
meaning in kind of you know downthe line.
So what what what gives us theanswers there?
Well, it's the science.
It's stuff that's true whetheryou like it or not.
It doesn't care about yourfeelings, it's like this is just
how things work.
And for me, there's a anethical imperative that we

(09:05):
should all be across this stuffif we're lucky enough to be in a
classroom with kids.
And and and likewise in otherfields, like we have, you know,
there are very few certainties,but there are probabilities.
And again, it comes back to theyou know, this idea of
empowerment, like where you'resaying to teachers, um, we trust
you to make decisions in yourown classroom, but we sort of

(09:29):
expect that you're gonna kind ofknow how the kids in your
classroom learn.
And the problem there is thatyou can it can very easily turn
into a lethal mutation of theresearch, where a great example
you gave where let's say youhave something like
Rosenschein's principles, wherehe had like seven or eight

(09:50):
principles of learning.
I've seen examples where seniorleaders go into class and
going, okay, here's sevenprinciples of learning.
We're gonna tick the list everytime we see them in your class.
That's a sort of a completemisappropriation of the science
of learning.
There's nothing scientificabout that at all.
That's just um, you know, adebased kind of understanding of

(10:14):
science.
So um it the teacher whounderstands those limitations of
working memory, who understandschecking for understanding, who
understands all these things,can deploy them where they see
fit because they know, well, I'mlooking at little Natalie here,
and by the look in her eyes, Ican tell she's having a bad day.
So I'm gonna use, I'm gonnachoose this out of the drawer,

(10:36):
this decision.
I'm not gonna stick with thiskind of predefined thing.
I'm gonna be um a kind of areflective practitioner in the
moment.
So I think that takes a littlebit of refining, but it means
that when we when we're dealingwith a school district, when
we're dealing with, you know, agroup of people, we need that
shared understanding of howlearning happens from which we

(10:59):
can all draw upon.

Melissa (11:00):
Yeah, that makes so much sense.
The checklist just resonates.
Every teacher I think can canum empathize with that and feel
like they have had someone comein with a checklist for
something.
And, you know, yeah, I don't doall those things in the 10
minutes that you came into myroom.
There's no way, but I do usethem when they're appropriate.
So yeah, thank you for sayingthat.

Lori (11:22):
Yeah.
Well, and helping, I think alsohelping educators have a deeper
understanding of the tools inthe toolbox and like kind of
like you said, Carl, like whento employ them.
I think that that is reallyhelpful for teachers to know.

Yeah, for sure.
And uh I think it's also why,you know, when I first started
teaching, I was going intoclassroom with uh ideas like
learning styles, um, the ideathat kids learn best when they
discover things for themselves.
So in that situation, almostevery decision I was making was

(11:56):
a bad one from an instructionaldesign point of view.
You know, and the kids arelearning in spite of their
teacher, not be you know,because of them.
Um so you know, it's likeimagine going to see, you know,
taking your kid to see uh uhtheir doctor and and and the
doctor pulling out healingcrystals and going, well, you
know, yeah, I I know what thescience says, but this works for

(12:19):
me, you know.
I'm gonna, this is what I thinkis the way to do it.
That's kind of what happens, orthat's what's been happening in
teaching.
So what is encouraging, Ithink, which is happening, you
know, as you guys are areworking on and working with
teachers and schools on this, isthat kind of shared
understanding is a as a startingpoint.
You know, no classroom is gonnalook identical.

(12:40):
But if we're all kind ofsinging from the same hymn
sheet, then we can um at leastmake decisions that are gonna
probably lead to betterlearning.

Melissa (12:51):
So we wanted to talk about some of these
non-negotiable things that youwrite about that every teacher
should know.
Um so we're getting into someof those.
What did you say?
You can hang your hat on it.

Yeah, yeah, stuff you can hang your hat on.

Melissa (13:03):
So we're gonna get into some of those.
Um the first thing we wanted totalk about was how we
understand new things based onwhat we already know.
And you kind of touched on thisalready, but I know this is
something that you know, Loriand I talk about a lot when it
comes to reading comprehension,and you know that what you
already know really impactswhether or not you understand
what you're reading.
Um but I we want to hear fromyou, like how does this apply to

(13:25):
learning even more generally?

Yeah.
I think there's a misconceptionthat knowledge is stuff that
you accumulate, that you kind ofbuild up.
Um but really it's stuff thatyou use to think with.
It's like you can't you can'tconnect the dots if you haven't
got any and uh this is somethingthat I think is you know, I I

(13:51):
keep hearing phrases likecritical thinking and the latest
one that uh sort of triggeringme is AI literacy, where there's
these kind of vague, nebulousthings.
But you know, how how doesmemory function?
How does thinking occur?
Well, it occurs with sort of uhreal constituent kind of parts

(14:11):
of knowledge.
And so, as you were saying,reading comprehension is it's
really determined by obviouslyby at a basic level decoding uh
words and letters, but themeaning, the semantic nature of
it is key.
This is something that uh Ireally encountered with the work
of um David Auserbel.
He said the most importantthing is what the learner

(14:36):
already knows.
Find out what that is, and thenteach them accordingly.
In other words, knowledge isthe stuff you think with.
It's the kind of rocks grindingagainst it, generating
something new rather than thisaccumulation of knowledge.
Another weird thing about humanmemory is that it's
reconstructive, notreproductive.
In other words, we're we don'tstore n stuff in our in our

(15:01):
brains like a file drawer orlike a tape recorder.
We're constantly shaping itbased upon our experience.
So when you which this is whyretrieval practice is so
powerful, because when you whenyou have to work to get it out
of your memory, you're kind ofrelaying it down.
It's not this kind of passivething.
And really good instructionaldesign is takes that into

(15:23):
account and will create sort ofcognitive traps where kids can
they'll learn stuff in spite ofum their own limitations.
They'll kind of harness thelimitations of what's happening.
So there is in in in thescience, there there is what's
called schemas, which is a whichis a sort of a problematic term

(15:44):
in the sense that it's notscientific.
It's not it's a model, it's anestimate of something.
And so it's these schemas islike a group of knowledge or
elements for a particulardomain.
Like you'll have a schema fordriving to work.
And the extent to which you'resuccessful at that is based upon
the richness of your schema.
It allows you, it frees you upto kind of listen to the radio,

(16:07):
sing songs.
If you're um, you know, drivingin a uh a new area, um, you
know, the classic example is weall do that thing where like
we'll turn the radio down tokind of, you know, because we're
concentrating, we're trying totrying to think.
So schemas are kind ofrepresent representational
models of facts, routines, uminterconnected knowledge that

(16:28):
allows us to sort of thinkcritically about particular
domains.
So really um knowledge is thething that we use to think with.

Lori (16:40):
I love that.
I think I like thinking aboutit in this way.
And you're really affirming alot of things that Melissa and I
talk about and think about onthis podcast.
Um, but um one thing I do wantto get into is this idea about
you've written about this, aboutknowing what students don't
know and how that can actuallybe more important than what they

(17:02):
do know.
I I think it's so relevant inmany scenarios.
Um, one of them being like aclassic sports example, right?
Like a kid who is um coming upto bat and he's he's swinging
his bat and he's just kind ofdoing and maybe he's hitting
some or maybe he's hitting alot.
But over time, he's gonnacreate some bad habits if he's

(17:25):
not explicitly and directlytaught the correct way that's
going to last him if he wants toplay ball all the way through
college or through life, right?
To have that stance and to havethe swinging.
I don't know all the ins andouts of baseball.
So I'm really going out on aledge here talking about that
one in particular.
But I have a friend who playsbaseball.
So he was explaining it to me.

(17:45):
Um, but I think that might bebe helpful, like knowing what
you don't know, right?
So if I'm like this little guyswinging and I don't know, I'm
doing it wrong, I'm just gonnakeep doing it wrong.
But I think that reallytransfers over into, you know,
literacy instruction and justinstructional strategies in
general about learning things.
So I'm gonna hand it over toyou to say more about that.

Yeah, great question.
Um So I think it's based uponthis idea that um that
misconceptions are they'rerecursive, they're not linear.
In other words, or or learningis recursive.
In other words, misconceptionscan emerge after something has
been learned.

(18:25):
Like you can feel that you'velearned it, you can be teaching
a class, and all the signs arethat they've learned this thing.
You're even checking forunderstanding.
But the misconceptions canemerge after much kind of you
know, a week, two weeks, threeweeks later.
And these misconceptions,they're sort of like you know,
cognitive antibodies in thatthey reject anything that

(18:48):
doesn't fit in with what theyalready know.
And trying to kind of get atthose and trying to sort of
unearth those for the student,as you say, that student who's
who's got his kind of form wrongin in uh sport or golf or
whatever it is, they don't know.
They're why isn't this working?

(19:08):
You know, that's where theexpert comes in and they're able
to sort of show them, break itdown into constituent parts, and
okay, now you practice it, youknow, which is why again, why
you know practice makes perfect.
Well, not really if it's thekind of wrong thing.

Lori (19:23):
Yeah, perfect practice makes perfect, right?

Exactly.
Uh and that's where I think inthe area of reading instruction,
like there's such a there'ssuch a rich uh journey of like
if you want to go from here tohere, there's a you know, here's
a there's a pretty good way ofdoing that.
I think in in education we haveless clear pathways.
So for example, um if you're uhyou know, if you're if your

(19:48):
early reading instruction is isa very strong one, maths is
another strong one where youhave you know clear knowledge is
hierarchical in maths.
If you if you don't understandsomething, you can kind of go
back two steps.
With say something like highschool English, it's what
Sweller calls an ill-defineddomain.
It's not clear what makessomeone really good at that

(20:09):
level.
Like you you can, if if if uh afive, six year old can't read
particular words, you can go,okay, we're gonna go back, we're
gonna revisit this sound andhow that, you know, this is a
tricky word or whatever.
If you're kind of 15 and youdon't understand the passage,
well, it's not evidentimmediately.
Well, there may bemisconceptions, words, a whole
range of things that's notunderstood.

(20:30):
But the misconception part iskey because I think a teacher
could go for days, weeks, evenmonths without finding out what
a kid doesn't know.
The the closer the feedbackloop is to the moment of
misconception, the more powerfulthe learning is gonna be.
If you're finding out that astudent doesn't know something
two weeks after the fact whenyou're marking their work,

(20:53):
they're not gonna know either.
And and most kids at any all ofus have been in this position
where you spend the whole Sundaymarking books, you give it back
to the kid with all thisfeedback.
They look at the grade and theygo, huh.
And then, and you know, youwant to kind of that's where I
think checking fund and standingis such a powerful lever
because you're in real time,you're saying, ah, you know that

(21:13):
thing that you think?
Well, actually it's this.
You kind of get thathypercorrection effect of, oh, I
thought it was that, but nowyou're telling me it's this.
That's interesting.
So that I think is where,again, really good curriculum
design is key because, and LeeSchuman is a wonderful phrase
for this that really greatteachers, they don't just know
their content one way, they knowit in several ways.

(21:36):
This to me is like thesuperpower of teachers.
They don't like a brilliantteacher, doesn't just know
photosynthesis.
They know how a seven-year-oldcan misunderstand elements of
photosynthesis.
They have this whole complexschema of they're gonna make
this mistake and I'm gonna beright in there to go, yeah, you
think in this, aren't you?

(21:57):
No, well, it's not that.
You would think so.
And again, that's why you knowsomeone with a PhD in science is
a terrible teacher for seven,eight-year-olds, because they
have got this very vertical,deep.
Why don't you get it?
Well, there you go.
But then if you know, theydon't, they can't understand why
a seven-year-old doesn'tunderstand something they like,
well, why don't you you know, Idon't get this.
Whereas teachers, they havethis innate skill to go, well,

(22:22):
I've seen that mistake over 10years, so I'm gonna preempt that
and I'm gonna have a littlesecret weapon to really help
that kid understand that thing.

Melissa (22:33):
Yeah, I'm so glad you said that about like the
difference between um liketeaching phonics, right?
You can have a student readaloud and you can hear those
mistakes and misconceptions veryquickly and get right in there
and fix it.
But you know, I was always Iwas a sixth grade teacher, so
you know, I taught like 10,11-year-olds, and you know,
you'd have them read, you know,take a test that was reading

(22:54):
alone silently.
And then I would get multiplechoice answers, or even writing
would help a little bit more tosee their thinking.
But my multiple choice answers,I don't know why they got that
wrong.
There could be so many reasonsthat it was, and it's hard to
pinpoint those misconceptionsand really help them with what
they need.

Yeah.
And then, you know, that's whyI think great curriculum design
looks at those hinge questionsor those threshold concepts.
What are the sort of really bigideas or words or uh sort of uh
those kind of transformative uhconceptual ideas that we really
need to zoom in on?

Lori (23:32):
Such a good point.
And I love connecting, I loveconnecting these big ideas to
reading and writing instruction.
I think it's really helpful.
Um, Carl, I want to dive intosomething that you've we we've
kind of we haven't talked aboutit yet, but Melissa and I talk
about this all the time.
That independent learning isn'thow we create independent

(23:52):
learners.
You've said that.
I would love for you to sharewhat you mean by that.
And then hopefully Melissa andI can jump in with a couple of
contextualizations for readingand writing instruction.

This is something that uh Paul Kirschhn and I
wrote in uh our first book, HowLearning Happens.
And really it's based upon thisidea that the constituent parts
to get to a desired outcomeoften look different than the
outcome itself.
In other words, if you want tolearn to read, you're doing
things that almost look theopposite of reading initially.

(24:26):
So you're doing things likephonemic awareness or the stuff
that's like not at all like, youknow, reading.

Lori (24:33):
Sure, you're not reading a word or a sentence.
You're just you're looking atindividual letter sounds.

So if you were to sort of get, and that's where I
think in in many fields ofeducation we go wrong, we think,
okay, we want to get them toread, so we want to get them to
do something that looks likereading.
I know, we'll get into here'ssome pictures, and you can guess
from the picture what the wordis, and that look kind of gives
the performance of reading, butactually it's not reading.
So there's a kind ofcounterintuitive thing there.
It's a little bit like there'sa thing with sports coaches,

(25:01):
like where a lot of the reallysuccessful ones, they have this
thing where they go, we don'tmention winning the league or
the title.
Uh our aim is to win the title,but we never talk about it.
We only focus on the next gameand the details that we need for
the next game.
So by winning the league, we'redoing, we're thinking about
fitness, we're thinking aboutformation, we're thinking about

(25:22):
we're not lift, we're notliterally lifting a trophy.
So I think that's a that'ssomething where you're kind of
reverse engineering what successlooks like.
So you're starting from the endpoint and going, well, you
know, what were the steps thatyou took to get there?
Oh, isn't it interesting thatactually the early stages of
that were like they lookednothing like the end, but they

(25:43):
were a really necessary part toget there.
And so for me, that's where wewould have an issue with things
like what we would callminimally guided instruction.
So pure discovery learning orsome aspects of inquiry
learning.
I think inquiry learning is forme, it's a disposition or a
kind of a disposition towardsasking questions about things.

(26:05):
And it, you know, it can bedone well, but anything where
the kids are too much left todiscover knowledge for
themselves that they don't have,um, I think that's just not an
efficient way of becoming anexpert in a in a particular
domain.
We we're evolved to be expertsharers of knowledge and
expertise.
Like we're that's our kind ofsuperpower as humans.

(26:28):
And so with the independentlearning thing, I think it let's
say you want to get um.
I mean, the example I alwaysgive on this is like a couple of
years ago, I decided I wouldlearn, I I try to learn how to
run.
And I'd just never been able torun in my life.
I just I just can't stand it.
Like it just like every time Ido it, I'm like, I'm not, I'm

(26:50):
not this is not good.
Like everything I'm with you,Carl.

Melissa (26:53):
Lori's not a little bit.

Everything in my well, I I I would like to like
to run.
I would love if I could likeit.
And so during lockdown, I dideverything that kind of
middle-aged men do is yeah, I'mgonna, you know, get start
running.

Lori (27:08):
Do you buy your running shoes?

The running shoes, got like new earphones,
yeah, the whole thing.
Sure.
Yeah, the whole the wholething.
Um so how do you run 5K?
Well, just get out and run, itcan't be that hard.
So I'm gonna, you know, got myApple Watch, got everything
ready to go, put on theearphones, I'm gonna run 5k by
running 5K.

(27:29):
Within five minutes, I'm bentover, like almost vomiting.
And I and and and I thought,well, that's that's not good, is
it?

Lori (27:36):
And then You try to independently learn this, didn't
you?

Yeah, yeah.
Like, like if you want to run5K, you run 5K.
What's the problem?
And then I read, or someonetipped me on to couch to 5k.
Week one, you run for 30seconds, walk for 90 seconds,
run for 30.
And I thought, well, this isthis is this is running for me.

(28:00):
If I don't have to run for 30seconds, I can I can definitely
do that.
Week one, did that three times.
So I'm half an hour running for30 seconds.
Week two, I think it's run 60seconds.
And I'm improving and I'm noteven noticing.
Like it's doesn't even feeleffortful.
Like, I can't believe that likeafter three, four weeks, I'm
like, I've just run for 15minutes without you know having

(28:25):
some sort of fit or a stroke.

Lori (28:28):
A heart, yeah, a heart attack.
That's great.

You're just um and then after you know, six
weeks, I'm I'm running for 30minutes.
Like I and I thought, well,that's a brilliant analogy for
instruction.
That to run 5K, the worst thingyou can do is run 5K.
You need to break it down intoconstituent parts that will get
you towards 5K.

(28:50):
So that's really what I mean byconflating or mixing the
desired endpoint with the stepsthat get you there.

Lori (28:58):
Yeah, that I mean, I feel like this is the in the US we
call it project-based learning.
I'm sure you probably call itthat too at some point.
Like, I feel like it's the likethe it's becoming, I think,
bigger, or maybe it is like abigger thing to do in the upper
grades, right?
Where middle and high school,where it's like, okay, we're
gonna assign students a task.

(29:19):
There's much less directinstruction happening.
You know what?
We're not even gonna give thema text.
We're just gonna let them findsome texts that support what
they are doing.
And what I'm hearing you say isthat's probably like a running
a blind 5K, right?
They're just, we're justsetting them on the path to run
a 5K without any structure,without any instruction.

(29:40):
And I, you know, I always thinklike if we're the educators,
we're the experts here inhelping our students learn, then
we need to bring that to thetable.
And can we do projects?
Sure.
Like, but how do we guide themthrough that?
Like I was exactly kind of whatyou're saying like, what's the
end goal?
And then how can I back map itfor my students?
Some are going to need moresupport.

(30:01):
Some are going to need less.
But I know that I want toprovide direct instruction
enough to have them get to acertain point to be able to go
ahead and continue down thepractice path on their 5K
journey so that it they'repracticing effectively or
they're working effectively.

That's it, exactly.
And we all want independentlearners.
Nobody wants, you know, 60minutes of explicit instruction.
That's not the aim.
The aim is to get kids towardsindependence, to be working
independently.
We just think there's a moreefficient way, a better way to
get there.

Lori (30:34):
Yeah, I love that.
Efficiency is key.
Teachers everywhere love thatword.

Melissa (30:39):
Well, one more word that we wanted to talk about was
engagement.
And I know this is somethingthat Lori and I get asked a lot
to talk about.
Well, what about studentengagement?
You all talk about studentengagement a lot.
And I love that one of thethings you said was engaging
lessons don't necessarily meanstudents are learning.
And I think this is justsomething that really struck me
because I know that I feel likea lot of times you, you know,

(31:00):
you get labeled as like the goodteacher in a school, and it
really means like your studentsare really engaged, but it
doesn't necessarily mean thatthey're learning.
They could be, but it doesn'tnecessarily mean that.
And so yeah, can you just talkto us a little bit about this
idea of engagement and learning?

Yeah.
And again, this is one of thosethings that's sort of, again,
you know, counterintuitive inthe sense that um learners can
be the most engaged withmaterial that either they
already know how to do or thatisn't really building those kind
of schemas or those kind oflong-term structures of
knowledge.
And again, it's the kind oflow-hanging fruit.

(31:40):
If you walk into a classroom,you're inferring that learning's
happening.
You know, learning is isobviously an invisible thing.
But what are the proxyindicators that you would use
for that?
And this was brought to myattention by Rob Coe maybe 10
years ago.
Rob Coe is a professor um outof Durham in England, and he

(32:01):
gave at his um inauguration, hehad this slide which was simply
poor proxy indicators oflearning.
And I remember the second onewas engagement, which was a real
for many of us the time I wasthinking, hang on a second, what
how is that not good?
How you know and he just makingthe point that it's a kind of

(32:21):
necessary but not sufficientcondition, and actually in in
the worst cases, it can be itcan actually get in the way of
learning, where you know youthink, well, I really want to
get the kids engaged on thistopic, so I'll kind of con them
into learning, or I'll trickthem into learning by getting
into these fun activities, oryou know, and it's you know, the

(32:43):
like learning another greatquote from Rob Coe is learning
happens when you think hard,when you sort of merge together
new knowledge with oldknowledge, and you you do a
little bit of wrestling, youknow, but in an exciting way,
you know, not in a way that's uhyou know, and you have the
sense of achievement andaccomplishment when you when you

(33:04):
kind of stretch that that stufftogether.
So I think certainly when Istarted teaching 15, 20 years
ago in London, there was a therewas a um a kind of a uh a
premium on engagement, as inlearning can happen when the
kids are really kind of engagedwith the material.
And so that then leads to stufflike, well, why should we teach
Shakespeare?

(33:24):
Because it's really notengaging and it's not, you know,
the kids are interested in it.
So, you know, one way to engagethe kids might be to get them
to rewrite the plays in in theform of a text message because
that's you know, kids are that'swhat they love, you know.
Um, so you know, there wasbooks like to be or not to be,
like the the the number two andthen an emotic emoji of a bee or

(33:49):
not to be, right?
And that we can get kidsengaged.
Well, they're they're superengaged.
You know, you walk into theclass and the kids are loving
it, they're you know, butthey're not really learning
anything, or they're at leastnot.

Lori (34:01):
But do they really understand Shakespeare and the
the play?

I mean the classic one is is you know, that
guy in the school who who uhyou know would get all the kids
into the the IT suite or thecomputer room and go, oh the
kids look, they're makingPowerPoint presentations on uh
Henry VIII or you know on theyou know um the Declaration of
Independence.
And all the kids are like, youknow, copy and pasting

(34:25):
paragraphs on Wikipedia, they'relike looking up Google images,
they're like like none of it,nothing is helping them
understand history or democracyor anything like that.
Then they do presentations andthe click teachers going, this
is amazing.
I haven't taught them anything.
They're literally learning it.
You that's right, you haven'ttaught them anything.
And then they're doingpresentations, which are copy

(34:47):
and pasted Wikipedia paragraphsthat they're reading out like
you know, like it's a hostagestatement or something in front
of the class.
And then like they're and thenthey're going, Wow, it's just
you know, independent learning,it's incredible.
So, you know, it's amazing.
They've given thesepresentations, it's been
amazing.
Look at the they've they'velearned digital literacy, you
know, they're learning how to soall of that stuff I think is

(35:09):
really again low expectations,you know.
It's it's and how patronizingis it to kids, like a a
40-year-old man's version ofwhat a teenager thinks is cool,
like text messages or you know,oh hear all you kids like their
rap music, you know, like let'sdid that guy, you know, with the
wacky tie and the cap onbackwards going, you know, I'm a

(35:31):
I'm a maverick.

Lori (35:32):
I'm cracking up.
I'm I'm cracking up because Ihonestly I think the only person
who's fooled here is the theteacher in that scenario.
Because dare I say, I think thekids know what they're getting
away with.
They're like, all I have to dois copy and paste and maybe put
it in, you know, AI these daysand be like, pair like rephrase
this.
And then it goes into thePowerPoint, and then they're
presenting and they were like,cool, done, right?

(35:54):
Like, I didn't actually have tothink.
And I don't think we're foolingour kids into thinking that
they have to think either.
They know.
Like they know when they'reworking hard.

100%, yeah.
And someone said to me theother day that they had seen
kids on a bus in London here,and they were using Chat GPT.
They were they were on the busand they had worksheets, science
worksheets, and they weretaking photographs of the
science worksheets.
Chat GPT was answering thewhole thing, and they were
going, this is great.
AI is great, we love it.

(36:24):
We're learning so much.
Look what we're learning.
And and then, and then youknow, like, and then and then
and then in schools we're going,well, we need to now teach AI
literacy.
So let's teach kids how to takephotographs.
You know, they can do this withChatGPT.
I mean, that's where we're at.

Lori (36:41):
Yeah, let's teach thinking instead.
So one thing though, I do wantto pull, like one thing we
should be teaching, right?
And should be doing in ourteaching is some well, not one
thing, three things actually.
These are evidence-basedpractices, right?
So if we want our kids to bethinking critically, not um, you
know, use engagement as abuzzword here, um, and not

(37:02):
likely not use AI for theirscience worksheets.
Um, I think we want to talkabout three evidence-based
practices that I know teacherslistening to this podcast
probably have heard a lot.
Um, it's retrieval practice,interleaving, and checking for
understanding.
To be totally honest, Carl,Melissa and I are struggling a
bit with a clear delineationbetween these three because not

(37:23):
to cue it up too much for you, II want to hear what you have to
say, but we kind of think oneis an umbrella term and the
others fit underneath.
But I I would love first,before we even dive in, just to
hear you like I was gonna say atthe very least, Lori, I feel
like there's some overlap.

Melissa (37:38):
We we Lori and I feel like there's overlap among them.
Yeah, with lots in the middle.

So retrieval practice, I guess probably
begins with Herming Ebbinghouse,uh, Ebbinghaus in the late 19th
century.
So he did some experiments onhimself uh to find out like how
long does it take to forgetstuff.

Lori (37:59):
And that's where we get the famous forgetting curve, you
know, where Oh, I can tell himwhen I walk into the other room,
Carl, I totally forget why Iwent in there.
So it takes like a second.

Yeah.

Lori (38:11):
No, I'm just kidding.

So that that day so he was testing.

Lori (38:15):
We get the forgetting curve, right?
That's what you I didn't justwant to cue you up.
Okay, forgetting curve.

Uh so he he tested himself on that, and he
did it with nonsense syllables.
So he did he made up thesethree-letter words.
So my problem with that is thatthat's not how memory works.
Memory works semantically.
We're we you know, we don'tremember things like non-no one
needs to ever remember, youknow, nonsense.
Uh, but but it was thebeginning of you know, how does

(38:41):
memory work?
How does testing you know, uhretrieval work?
Then retrieval then becomesprobably in the last sort of 20,
30 years, there's been a hugeamount of research that shows
that the active recalling ofknowledge and information
strengthens that knowledgealmost better than anything

(39:02):
else, anything else.
This is the testing effect.
Um checking for understandingis a term, it actually begins
with someone called MadelineHunter in the 60s who wrote she
wasn't an academic, she justwrote books about instruction
that are fantastic books.
They're so readable, they'rewritten in a very
straightforward, clear style.
Um, but she actually originatedthe term checking for

(39:25):
understanding.
And checking for understandingis this idea of in a lesson, and
I suppose it's most formalizedwithin the DI framework, the
direct instruction framework.
So you are constantly checkingthe students that you're
teaching for understanding, butyou're not checking in a passive
way.
So you're not saying, okay,everyone understand that?

(39:47):
Everyone happy with that?
Any questions?
Thumbs up.
That's not checking forunderstanding.
That's silence.
Or probably what you're gonnaget is all the kids going, when
they really don't.

Melissa (39:56):
Yeah, got it.

So checking for understanding the art of it, and
I would say that if there wasone lever to pull in a
classroom, there's one thing toget good at for me, it's
checking for understanding.
Because you are, again,shorting the feedback loops
between the misconception andwhere the kid's going to get
that corrective feedback.
What does it look like?
It looks like, you know, one ofthe best ones I ever saw was a

(40:22):
teacher who, as the kids arewalking into the room, she she
had, she was, she had a questionon the board and she was
saying, you know, simple thingslike, um, oh hi Natalie, great
to see you.
Can you just think about thatquestion on the board there?
And the question was like ahinge concept from the previous
thing.
And then within two minutes inthe lesson, she's gotten them

(40:43):
all using mini whiteboards andgoing, which which of the four
things, finger voting, which ofthe four things is the best
definition of the thing thatI've just told you, the thing
that I've literally just said toyou and all the kids.
And then she's she's gettinglike 90% correct, going, Oh,
great, I'm gonna move on.
And then I'm uh, you know,John, I'm gonna I'll come to you

(41:04):
in a minute.
And then she had like it wasevery three minutes, all these
different ways of checking forunderstanding.
You know, uh, if it was a morecomplex kind of thing, like an
opinion on something, it wouldbe like, here's a question, turn
to your partner, 30 seconds go.
And she's walking around theroom, kind of listening in for

(41:25):
the kids who don't want to, youknow, say anything.
30 seconds go.
Okay, how did we get on withthat?
I'm gonna ask, and then she'scold calling students, going,
okay, here's a question.
You've got 30 seconds to thinkabout it, and I'm gonna call
someone at random, and thenshe's choosing people.
She's getting this likephenomenal rich data stream all
the time.
And the checking forunderstanding is not so much to

(41:47):
check whether the kids know it,it's to inform her what to do
next.
So she can be adaptive, she canbe responsive in real time to
what those kids need.
And again, that's where if youhave a lesson where the kids are
kind of in groups for 30minutes, 40 minutes, they're not
going to know what they don'tknow.
And if you don't know what theydon't know, then it's just a

(42:10):
kind of pedagogical theater.
There's not like there's justthis kind of nothing being
addressed at the conceptuallevel.
So if you think about an hourlesson and the EDI framework, so
the explicit directinstruction, and I and I would I
should say that directinstruction, people think this
is lecturing.

(42:30):
Nothing could be further fromthe truth.
Direct instruction is sayingwe're gonna have a really clear
curriculum.
We're gonna kind of script whatwe're gonna say because
everyone has a script andthere's actually good ways of
saying things and explainingthings.
And then it says we're gonnacheck in on the kids'
understanding every couple ofminutes.
And in the EDI framework, theexplicit direct instruction

(42:53):
model by Hollingsworth andYibara, which is just a great
sort of plug and play, you know,without the kind of dense
theory, they advocate thatteachers should check for
understanding every two minutes.
In other words, they're nottalking for any longer than two
minutes.
They are checking in, they'resaying, you know, they're using
kind of like tools to sort of umuncover, you know, little kind

(43:19):
of tin can openers to uncoverlike what's going on in these
kids' heads.
And so if you're, you know,like for me as a teacher, I
would be kind of it took meyears to to figure this out.
And that actually it looks likethat, you know, I'd get them to
do tasks at a table for half anhour, and then at the end of
it, they'd go, Well, okay, guys,what did you think about this

(43:39):
poem?
We think it's sad.
It is sad, isn't it?
Sad.
Very good.
This table, what what do youthink about, you know, and like,
you know, they've just spenthalf an hour just kind of moving
around, shuffling theirignorance around without really
sort of, you know.
And so the the checking forunderstanding becomes this, I
think, this really powerfullever.

(44:00):
And again, to go back to ourpoint about the science of
learning, that teacher, she'susing her uh professionalism,
her knowledge, her, her, herrelationship with these students
to know this technique ofchecking forstanding is really
gonna work with this kid.
I don't want to cold call herbecause she's a little bit
uncomfortable speaking.

(44:20):
So, what I'll do is I'll do apair share and I'll just kind of
I'll just kind of stand next toher.
And that way I can get, I cancheck her understanding, I can
hear.
Like it becomes this masterfulkind of dance of practice.
Uh so then retrieval is the thethe generating of answers, and
you know, mostly looks like umquestions, but actually

(44:43):
retrieval can be a whole rangeof things.
It can be discussion, it can beuh a generative activity, it
can be drawing something, it canbe, you know, as long as
there's that kind of like, I'mgonna bring work hard to get it
out of my long-term memory.
Interleaving is probably themost complex of the three, and
that means varying theconditions of practice.
In other words, if you have aset of maths problems, you're

(45:05):
instead of doing 10 of the exactsame in a row, you're gonna mix
up the type of problems they'redoing.
Not the subject.
So they're not gonna do 10minutes in English, 10 minutes
in geography.
You're gonna kind of vary thetypes of problems.
In sport, they do this reallywell.
So they mix up like the thethings you've got to do.
So um I used to coach footballin a school and wait, what kind

(45:30):
of football are we talking?
Football that you play withyour feet, not with your hands.

unknown (45:34):
Okay.

Lori (45:34):
Just wanted to be clear.

Yeah, yeah.
So like football where you knowyou use your foot with the
ball.
Yeah, not throwing the ball.

Lori (45:43):
I'm with you.
That's my favorite sport too.

Okay.
So, but I I did that thing thatlike a lot of you know men do,
which is, well, I've beenwatching football a lot, I know
exactly what to do here.
And then I was coaching kidsand and and I just had no clue
what I was doing at all.
And then they brought in a realcoach.
And I and and like he wasunbelievable.
Like he had been trained, hehad done his badges, training,

(46:07):
all that.
And I was, I was, I was like,God, Jesus, you know, how how is
he he's getting to he's seeingall these things that I've never
seen, I I could never seen.
But he he did this one thingwhere we which was like passing
back to to one another with theball kicking back to four, and
then he would like they'd dothat, and then they they'd get
comfortable and he would switchit up immediately.
He'd go, right, turn and dothis now.

(46:29):
And the boys were like, Oh, Idon't really like that.
I was really happy doing thatone.

Lori (46:33):
So that's because you're on autopilot, right?
Right?
It's like those, you know, 10,10 of the same math problems in
a row.
You're like, I know exactlywhat to do here, right?
And your brain just kind ofgoes on autopilot, but then if
you interrupt that, you reallyhave to stop and think.
I mean, I I assume it's thesame idea, right?
The same thing.

This is what Robert Burr calls, uh Robert and
Elizabeth Burr call desirabledifficulties.
So they're desirable becausethey lead to an outcome, better
long-term learning, but they'redifficult in the short term.
And again, we know this from,you know, if you want to um get
in shape, you know, you've gotto do stuff in the short term
that's kind of uncomfortable.
So interleaving is one of thosethings where you're varying the

(47:10):
conditions of practice, you'remaking it slightly more trickier
and a bit more difficult to do,but it leads to greater
long-term gains in terms oflearning.

Melissa (47:21):
So, Carl, could you potentially be doing all three
of those at the same time?
Like, could you be checking forunderstanding by having them
retrieve information, recallinformation, and also do it in
different ways.
So you're also interleaving.
Like, could you do that likeall three within a lesson?

100%.
And I would say that where yousee that is in a lot of the
early reading programs, and uh,and not just like with phonics
instruction, but some of thosethings are works of art.
You know, you like I I rememberlooking at some of my
daughters, um there's a uh abook by Engelman called Teaching

(47:58):
Your Kid to Read in a HundredEasy Lessons, which is not a
it's not an easy book to read.
Um but I remember getting intothe weeds on it and thinking,
man, like whoever's come up withthis, like you know, and if you
see and I and I, you know, so Iwas a secondary English teacher
and didn't really have anydealings at all with early

(48:21):
reading, didn't really thinkabout it, didn't really just
thought it was nothing to dowith me.
And then when I saw my mydaughter seven now and she was
learning how to read, I waslike, This is the most magical,
like nothing I have ever done inmy teaching career compares to
what her kindergarten receptionteacher is doing in terms of

(48:43):
teaching her how to read.
And I was like fangirling her.
Every time I was picking up mydaughter, I was like, So yeah,
uh, you know, are you doing umgrapheme, you know, like what
are you doing now?
She was like, Can you just takeyour daughter and leave,
please?
Because it was just such from alearning point of view, I was
like, God, this is so like allthe things I'm learning about,
like interleaving, retrieval,checking for understanding, like

(49:04):
it's so you, it's justbrilliantly.
And I I've seen so many,there's some people on uh social
media um who you you watch themteaching you know lessons, uh
early reading, and you just go,This is like the the
sophistication, the complexity.

(49:25):
Like you say, that Venndiagram, so many stuff, like
into you know, the the kids areretrieving knowledge, they're
check the teachers checking forunderstanding.
She's um they're they'regenerating an answer.
Um, there's a response, youknow, it's just just incredible.
Whereas, you know, um for me itwas kind of like okay, boys,

(49:48):
we're gonna read chapter five,open up your books on page 10,
you know, like that kind ofthing.
Um so yeah, and and I thinkthat's where um we can a lot
could be learned, I think, fromuh like almost to the point now
where if I was retraining as ateacher, I'd probably go back
and do you know, I I like thatthat like there's nothing that

(50:13):
explosion of learning from likefive to you know five to six,
four to five with my daughter,where she just went from you
know walking around the worldkind of like to suddenly like
she's reading books, she'sreading science, she's she's
she's reading something, andthere's an image in her head
from someone who who died 50years ago, like it's a
phenomenal magical thing.

(50:34):
Um yeah.
So I'm I'm I'm just obsessedwith that um that field, yeah.

Lori (50:42):
Yeah.
So okay, so we are too,obviously.
That's why we're here and havethis podcast.
Is there a magical likeiteration for interleaving?
Like, how do you know how oftento bring it back?
I mean, I think of it in myhead, the image like when you
were like, you know, uh talkingabout your daughter, she's

(51:03):
reading something, she's animage in her head.
The image in my head when Ithink about interleaving is like
a slinky or a tornado, justsome sort of spiraling forward
and back.
Um that's just kind ofnever-ending.

Yeah, that's a really good visual analogy for
that.
I think it's really dependentupon um like a calibration to
it, where if you can if you canmake the exercise difficult
enough that they're not justlike ripping through it where
they're doing it for the sake ofdoing it.
They're having to really like,and this is one thing I learned

(51:41):
from reading a book calledTheory of Instruction by
Engelman and Carnine that weoften learn things not by what
they are, but by what they'renot.
And learning is often thisprocess of discrimination
between two things that are likekind of similar.
And again, the genius of earlyreading instruction is that all
the boundary conditions areapplied.

(52:01):
In other words, the differencebetween the letter D and B, kids
really they don't get that,they can't see what that is.
So the design of showing themwhat it is by showing them what
it isn't, and what what wheredoes that rule hold?

(52:22):
Where does it stick?
Where does it come apart?
That's where you want a wholeset of carefully calibrated
examples that are around thething that you're trying to
teach them, um, so that they canthen distinguish and think
critically about that thing.
Um, so you know, if you'reteaching, I don't know,
democracy or something likethat, or um the kids can have a

(52:44):
very basic understanding of whatthat is, but they need a whole
range of boundary conditions ofwhat it is, what it isn't, what
it is in certain contexts, wherethis rule applies and that rule
doesn't apply.
So interleaving is really akind of a this process of
discriminating between thingsall the time, and you're seeing,
oh, right, I get it now becauseit's not that thing.

Lori (53:04):
It's similar to that, but would it be fair to say
interleaving helps build schema?

Yeah, I mean that's that's the theory.
It's it's it's it's notsomething you're ever going to
observe.
So you're inferring thatthere's no physical schema in
the brain.
Although neuroscience can sortof there is a there is a fit
physical component to it, butyou're you're explicitly talking
about models.
And you know, as the sayinggoes, all models are wrong, but

(53:30):
some are more useful thanothers.
And I think that's aparticularly useful model in the
sense that um you're gonnaremember stuff better.
So if we go with Paul'sdefinition that learning is a
change in long-term memory, thenwhat are the levers you can
pull to help kids remember thatstuff?

(53:50):
And interleaving is definitelyone of them.

Lori (53:54):
This is so great.
And I and as you said, checkfor understanding and retrieval
practice, all of these are.
So, Carl, we're down to the endhere.
Um, if I want teachers toremember one thing about the
science of learning.
And I think it would be helpfulif you chose just one thing to
share and just bring thispodcast to a close so that

(54:14):
teachers can head off into theirday, into their evening,
thinking about this one thing.

I would say um that it's really about the
empowerment of teachers.
And I think teachers have beentypically given answers to
questions they never asked.
And there are things likelearning styles, there are
things like, oh, you must use aniPad.
There are a whole range ofstuff that's been imposed upon,

(54:42):
you know, we're gonna do triplemarking, double marking, we're
gonna do book scrutiny, we'regonna do, you know,
hundred-minute lessons, we'regonna do, you know, all this
kind of stuff.
And none of it has emanatedfrom teachers themselves.
And so what the science oflearning does, kind of for me,
is it empowers teachers to makeinformed decisions in their

(55:03):
classrooms and to be, you know,like a professional in the sense
that an engineer or a doctor orwhatever is a professional,
where they're using theirjudgment from an agreed body of
knowledge where there's a broadconsensus around certain ideas,
and then that they are providingenough care for their kids that

(55:26):
they teach, that they go, Icare about you enough that I'm
gonna show up with the bestknowledge that I can bring to
help you learn stuff, as opposedto kind of just myths and fads
and gimmicks.
I'm gonna show up with stuffthat is there's no guarantee
you're gonna learn anything, butwe're gonna attack this with

(55:47):
the best set of tools that wehave.
And for me, we we kind of knowwhat they are.
We don't always know how theywork in practice, but as I said,
there are a series of sort ofbest bets and probabilities.
And you know, I want myteachers, uh my daughter's
teachers to be using those.
I I think every teacher shoulduse those.
And also it allows teachers topush back against nonsense.

(56:10):
It allows teachers to say, youknow what, and that's a like
there's a great thing I thinkhappening in in the States with
the Sold the Story podcast, andwhere actually a lot of the
change came from a kind ofbottom-up movement where it was
teachers and parents, and andyou know, thanks also to
podcasts like yours, whereyou're really getting the kind
of word out about the science ofreading that is having an

(56:33):
impact.
And the beneficiaries of thatare kids, and that's the most
important thing.

Melissa (56:40):
So, Carl, thank you so much for joining us today and
for making sense of this topicthat can feel really daunting to
teachers, but and sharing someof those like things they can
do, pull those levers to reallymake sure that their students
are learning.
Um, I know that Lori and I wefollow your Substack and we
learn so much from it.
So I would encourage teachersto to also follow your Substack.

(57:03):
Um, and you have tons of greatbooks that they can dig into too
when you know when they havetime.
Um, but your Substack's a nice,easy one to read quickly every
week.
So thank you so much for fortaking this time with us and
sharing all this greatinformation.
We really appreciate it.

Thanks so much.
It's been such an honor to beon your show.

Melissa (57:26):
To stay connected with us, sign up for our email list
at literacypodcast.com.
Join our Facebook group, andfollow us on Instagram and
Twitter.

Lori (57:36):
If this episode resonated with you, take a moment to share
with a teacher friend, or leaveus a five-star rating and
review on Apple Podcasts.

Melissa (57:46):
Just a quick reminder that the views and opinions
expressed by the hosts andguests of the Melissa and Laurie
Love Literacy Podcast are notnecessarily the opinions of
Great Minds PBC or itsemployees.

Lori (57:57):
We appreciate you so much, and we're so glad you're here
to learn with us.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

Stuff You Should Know

The Breakfast Club

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}How Learning Happens: Principles Every Teacher Should Know with Carl Hendrick