Wow. Wrote this ten years ago. A few things I might tweak but mostly it sill feels pretty aligned to learning science.

Qué fácil ser purista de la lengua. Puro enojarse y perder batallas.

Educators often focus on how students learn differently. Much of the theory there (e.g. learning styles) is not supported by evidence. What IS supported by evidence is the overall structure of human cognition- the similarities in how the great majority of us learn. In...

GIVEAWAY! We have a few copies of our - Carl Hendrick Dr. Jim Heal Paul A. Kirschner - new book to give away. Bonus points if you reply to this tweet telling us something you used to believe about teaching and learning but don’t anymore. RT to be included in the draw. Hachette Books

Such an important point! #rED25 Paul A. Kirschner

The way Progressive math education talks about itself, it’s like they think they discovered the power of understanding.

As a parent, I’m happy if you just teach my kid knowledge rather than attempting to teach her how to think. She can already think, and so can all the other kids. She needs more to think with. I hope that relieves an enormous burden and opens doors for a knowledge rich education.

This is so important

I have to laugh at comments about explicit teaching being “easier” and inquiry being the more “elevated” teaching method. Setting aside the fact you have to get kids to pay attention and responding to EVERY signal, explicit teaching means you can’t just assign stuff anymore!

For those who question the effectiveness of scaffolding via "I do, we do, you do", please read below. The purpose of this graphic is to illustrate what scaffolding is and how students’ learning can be supported at different tiers. The “I do, we do, you do” model of scaffolding

A brilliant phrase: “Optimised to solve the problem of boredom, not learning languages.” It explains why so many online ‘learning’ tools are light on the learning. It’s a user illusion. They’re optimized to entertain- often w young people parked (by schools!) in front of them.

I talk a lot about the issues with reading curriculum, but math curricula deserve just as much attention. The refrain from teachers: “Elementary curricula aren’t giving kids enough practice.” Practice is key to fluency with math facts and strong math foundations. I wish we

People in England never go get a tea or a coffee without asking you if you would like one too. And i just want to say that those small gracious gestures are so lovely & meaningful.

The best teachers I've seen don't use a wide range of activities. They do a few things, and they do them well. They hone them, practise them, and know exactly when each one should be used and why. The students become habituated to them, and learning goes through the roof.

The late-stage PhD candidate urge to write lecture notes on a classical topic... 30 books on stochastic calculus have come out in the past decade but none of them are good..... I can do it right....

Not all "research" is evidence that you as a teacher should use a strategy in your classroom. You don't have the right to experiment w children or use instructional tactics you like. You have a moral & professional obligation to ensure children attain the academic skills they

It is interesting to talk to educators who have transferred from schools with a lot of structure and accountability to ones without any systems. It feels like the rug is pulled out from under you. How many more schools out there are like this? Can we even call them schools?

Yo viendo que la Academia Sueca le dio el Nobel a un húngaro que en español publica Acantilado:

Things that don’t improve student learning: -1:1 devices -SEL/universal school-based mental health care -Inquiry & Project-based learning Things that do improve student learning: -reading books & writing on paper -recess, physical activity -teacher-led, explicit instruction

Carl Hendrick critiques Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences theory, arguing it lacks scientific evidence despite widespread adoption in education. He highlights Gardner's admission that the theory may be scientifically false but should remain influential anyway. Hendrick