Abstract

Nosotros present 10 tips for building effective lessons that are grounded in empirical research on educational activity and cognitive psychology and that we have constitute to be practically useful in both classroom and gratuitous-range settings

Writer summary

Equally a species, nosotros know as much well-nigh teaching and learning as nosotros do about public health, simply virtually people who teach at the postsecondary level are never introduced to even the basics of evidence-based educational activity. Knowing just a few key facts will help y'all build more constructive lessons in less time and with less hurting and will too make those lessons easier for your peers to notice and reuse. This paper presents x tips that you can use immediately and explains why they work.

Citation: Wilson G (2019) 10 quick tips for creating an constructive lesson. PLoS Comput Biol 15(4): e1006915. https://doi.org/10.1371/periodical.pcbi.1006915

Editor: Francis Ouellette, University of Toronto, CANADA

Published: April 11, 2019

Copyright: © 2022 Greg Wilson. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Artistic Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: The author received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The author has declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

At that place are many kinds of lessons, both formal and informal, from seconds long to lifelong. Most people have sat (or suffered) through hundreds of these but have never been shown how to design ones that are effective. These 10 simple tips for creating lessons are

  • based on current educational research [i, 2, 3, four, 5, 6],
  • filtered by what can be done by nonspecialists with limited time and resource [7, 8], and
  • prioritized by experience teaching and training people to teach together [9, 10, eleven].

The fundamental insight that underpins all of these tips is that learning is both a cerebral and a social activity. On the cognitive side, incoming information (the lesson) passes through a "sensory register" that has physically separate channels for visual and auditory information and is stored in brusk-term memory, where it is used to construct a "verbal model" (sometimes also called a "linguistic model") and a dissever "visual model" [12]. These are then integrated and stored in long-term memory as facts and relationships. If those facts and relationships are strengthened past use, they can afterward be recalled and applied, and we say that learning has taken identify.

One cardinal feature of this model is that short-term memory is very limited: [13] famously estimated its size as 7 ± 2 items, and more than recent studies identify the effigy closer to four. If also much information is presented besides rapidly, material spills out of brusk-term memory before it can be integrated and stored, and learning does not occur.

A second key characteristic is that the brain's processing power is as well very express. Try spent identifying key facts or reconciling the linguistic and visual input streams reduces the power available for organizing new information and connecting it to what's already present.

Learning is also a social activity. Learners who feel motivated will learn more; learners who feel that they may not be judged on their claim or who accept experienced diff treatment in the past will learn less (encounter the tip "Motivate and avoid demotivating"). In [14], e.g., Kenneth Wesson wrote, "If poor inner-city children consistently outscored children from wealthy suburban homes on standardized tests, is anyone naive enough to believe that we would still insist on using these tests every bit indicators of success?" Lesson designers must take the social aspects of learning into business relationship if they are to create constructive lessons; we discuss this farther in the final tip ("Make lessons inclusive").

1. Employ learner personas to define your audience

The get-go step in creating a good lesson is figuring out who the audience is. Ane style to practice this is to make upward biographies of two or three target learners. This technique is borrowed from user interface designers, who create short profiles of typical users to assist them think about their audition.

These profiles are called "personas" and have 5 parts:

  1. the person's general background,
  2. what they already know,
  3. what they think they want to do (equally opposed to what someone who already understands the field of study thinks),
  4. how the lesson will aid them, and
  5. whatever special needs they might have.

A learner persona for a weekend introduction to programming aimed at college students might be as follows:

  1. Jorge has just moved from Costa Rica to Canada to study agricultural engineering. He has joined the college soccer team and is looking forwards to learning how to play water ice hockey.
  2. Other than using Excel, Word, and the internet, Jorge'southward well-nigh significant previous experience with computers is helping his sister build a WordPress site for the family business back home in Costa rica.
  3. Jorge needs to measure out properties of soil from nearby farms using a handheld device that sends logs in a text format to his computer. Correct at present, Jorge has to open each file in Excel, crop the showtime and concluding points, and calculate an boilerplate.
  4. This workshop will bear witness Jorge how to write a fiddling Python program to read the data, select the right values from each file, and calculate the required statistics.
  5. Jorge can read English well only still struggles sometimes to keep upwards with spoken conversation (especially if information technology involves a lot of new jargon).

Rather than writing new personas for every lesson or course, instructors oft create and share a handful that cover everyone they hope to teach, then selection a few from that fix to describe who item material is intended for. Used this way, personas go a convenient shorthand for design problems: when speaking with each other, teachers can say, "Would Jorge sympathize why we're doing this?" or, "What installation problems would Jorge face?"

Personas assist yous remember one of the about important tips of teaching: you lot are not your learners. The people you teach will nearly always have dissimilar backgrounds, different capabilities, and unlike ambitions than you; personas aid you keep your lessons focused on what they need rather than on what your younger cocky might have wanted.

two. Design for effective learning strategies

Some learning strategies are provably more effective than others [15, sixteen, 17], so lessons should be designed to encourage their apply. Equally summarized in [eighteen, nineteen], the six most of import are as follows:

  • Ten hours of report spread out over 5 days are more constructive than two 5-hour days and far better than ane 10-hr day. Y'all should therefore create lessons and exercises that include some older textile in each new lesson. Co-ordinate to [20], "The lectures that predominate in face-to-face courses are relatively ineffective ways to teach, but they probably contribute to spacing material over fourth dimension, because they unfold in a set schedule over time. In contrast, depending on how the courses are fix, online students tin can sometimes avert exposure to material altogether until an assignment is nigh."
  • Researchers at present believe that the limiting cistron for long-term memory is not retention (what is stored) only recall (what can be accessed). Retrieve of specific information improves with practice, then outcomes in real situations can exist improved past taking practise tests or summarizing the details of a topic from memory and then checking what was and wasn't remembered. [21], east.g., plant that repeated testing improved call back of word lists from 35% to 80%.
  • I manner to space retrieval practice is to interleave report of different topics: instead of mastering 1 subject, and then the side by side, then a third, shuffle the social club. Even better, switch up the order: A-B-C-B-A-C is better than A-B-C-A-B-C, which in plow is better than A-A-B-B-C-C [15]. This is effective considering interleaving fosters creation of more than links between different topics, which in turn increases retentivity and think.
  • Having learners explain things to themselves and others equally they keep improves understanding and call back. One way to do this is to follow up each reply on a practice quiz with an explanation of why that answer is right or, conversely, with an explanation of why some other plausible answer isn't. Another is to have learners explain how a new idea is similar to or dissimilar from one they have seen previously.
  • One specific grade of elaboration that is useful plenty to deserve its own heading is the use of physical examples. As discussed in the tip "Employ worked examples and concreteness fading," every statement of a general principle should be accompanied by one or more examples of its use or, conversely, should have each item problem and list the full general principles it embodies. [22] found that interleaving examples and definitions made it more likely that learners would remember the latter correctly.
  • Another approach is to teach past dissimilarity, i.e., to show learners what a solution is not or what kind of problem a technique won't solve. When showing children how to simplify fractions, e.1000., it's important to requite them a few like 5/7 that can't be simplified and so that they don't become frustrated looking for answers that don't exist.

Different subsystems in our brains handle and store linguistic and visual information, and if complementary data is presented through both channels, and then they tin can reinforce one another. However, learning is more effective when the same data is not presented simultaneously in 2 unlike channels [23, 12] considering then the brain has to expend effort to bank check the channels against each other. This is one of the many reasons that reading slides verbatim is ineffective: non only is the reader not adding value, they are really adding to the load on learners whose brains are trying to cheque that the spoken and written inputs are consistent.

three. Write summative assessments to set concrete goals

"Summative assessment" is something done at the end of a lesson to tell whether the desired learning has taken place: a driving test, performance of a piece of music, a written examination, or something else of that kind. Summative assessments are usually used as gates (e.1000., "Is it now safe for this person to bulldoze on their own?"), but they are too a practiced way to clarify the learning objectives for a lesson. "Understand linear regression" is hopelessly vague; a much better fashion to set the goal for that lesson would be to ascertain an exercise, such as the post-obit:

Write a brusque R script that reads the tabular data in housing.csv and uses the lm role to calculate a regression coefficient relating firm price to purchaser age.

This is meliorate considering it gives the lesson author a concrete goal to work toward: nothing goes in the lesson except what is needed to consummate the summative assessments. This helps reduce content bloat and also tells the author when the lesson is done.

Writing summative assessments early in the lesson pattern process also helps ensure that outcomes are really checkable. Since telepathy is non yet widely available, it is incommunicable for instructors to know what learners do and don't empathise. Instead, we must ask them to demonstrate that they're able to practise something that they couldn't exercise without the desired understanding.

Finally, creating summative assessments early can help authors stay connected to their learners' goals. Each summative assessment should embody an "accurate task," i.due east., something that an actual learner actually wants to practice. Early on, authentic tasks should be learners' own goals; every bit they advance and are able to make sense of generalizations, these tasks may be extensions or generalizations of earlier solutions.

Continuing with the statistical example above, calculating a regression coefficient may be an accurate job for someone who already knows enough statistics to empathize what such coefficients are good for. If the intended learners are not yet that experienced, this exercise could be extended to accept them make some sort of judgment based on the regression coefficients to exercise higher-gild thinking.

4. Write formative assessments for pacing, design, preparation, and reinforcement

The counterpoint to summative assessment is "determinative assessment," which is checks that are used while learning is taking identify to form (or shape) the teaching. Asking learners for questions is a common, but relatively ineffective, kind of formative cess. What works meliorate is to give them a short trouble—ane that can exist done in i–2 minutes and then as not to derail the flow of the lesson and that will help them uncover and confront their misconceptions about the topic being taught.

Checking in with learners this way every 10–15 minutes accomplishes several things:

  • Asking "Does anybody understand?" almost ever produces faux positives. In contrast, if any substantial fraction of your learners cannot do a formative assessment correctly, you lot know correct then and there that y'all need to re-explicate the most recent fabric. When yous start doing this, you lot will feel similar you're going more slowly, simply that's because yous will now be teaching at the speed at which your audience tin can acquire rather than the speed at which you lot can talk.
  • Creating formative assessments that build toward a lesson's summative assessment gives you a structure for your lesson. Returning to the regression instance, the summative assessment tells yous that you should take exercises forth the fashion in which learners load CSV information, use the lm function with appropriate parameters, and translate the event. Writing a few minutes of textile for each of these subjects is less intimidating than trying to explicate the whole topic at once.
  • Determinative assessments requite learners practise with the concepts, methods, and tools they will use when doing the lesson's summative assessment and tells them where to focus their revision. Switching from statistics to music, if a violinist is able to do the bowing and fingering exercises for a piece but is struggling with the rhythmic patterns, that tells her where she should spend her study time.
  • Learners recall things improve if they use material right abroad; having determinative assessments during the lesson does this.
  • Breaking a summative cess down into parts and creating determinative assessments for each normally shows you that yous are trying to cram too much into 1 lesson. Writing assessments is therefore iterative, as early drafts of summative assessments are rescoped to only require as much fabric as can plausibly exist covered.

[24, 25, 26] offer inspiration for a wide variety of unlike kinds of summative and formative cess exercises.

v. Integrate visual and linguistic data

Research by Mayer and colleagues on the separate-attention effect is closely related to cognitive load theory [23]. As described in the introduction, linguistic and visual input are processed by different parts of the human being brain, and linguistic and visual memories are stored separately equally well. This means that correlating linguistic and visual streams of information takes cerebral attempt: when someone reads something while hearing it spoken aloud, their encephalon tin't help but check that it'southward getting the aforementioned information on both channels.

Learning is therefore more constructive when information is presented simultaneously in ii unlike channels, but when that data is complementary rather than redundant. People mostly detect it harder, e.1000., to learn from a video that has both narration and on-screen captions than from ane that has either the narration or the captions but not both because some of their attending has to exist devoted to checking that the narration and the captions agree with each other. Two notable exceptions to this are people who practise not yet speak the language well and people with hearing exercises or other special needs, both of whom may find that the actress try is a cyberspace benefit.

This is why it'due south more effective to draw a diagram piece past slice while teaching rather than to present the whole thing at once. If parts of the diagram appear at the same time equally things are being said, the two volition be correlated in the learner'south retentiveness. Pointing at part of the diagram later is so more than likely to trigger recall of what was existence said when that function was existence drawn.

The split-attending effect does not hateful that learners shouldn't try to reconcile multiple incoming streams of information—after all, this is something they have to do in the real globe [27]. Instead, it means that instruction shouldn't require information technology while people are mastering unit skills; instead, using multiple sources of information simultaneously should be treated equally a dissever learning task.

6. Design for peer didactics

No matter how good a instructor is, she tin only say ane thing at a fourth dimension. How so can she clear up many dissimilar misconceptions in a reasonable time? The best solution developed so far is peer teaching. Originally created by Eric Mazur at Harvard [28], it has been studied extensively in a wide variety of contexts (e.g., [29, 30]).

Peer teaching is essentially a scalable mode to provide 1-to-1 mentorship. It interleaves determinative assessment with pupil discussion as follows:

  1. Give a cursory introduction to the topic, either in class or in out-of-class reading.
  2. Requite learners a multiple-choice question (MCQ).
  3. Have all the students vote on their answers to the MCQ.
    1. If all the students take the right answer, motion on.
    2. If they all take the aforementioned incorrect answer, address that specific misconception.
    3. If they take a mix of right and wrong answers, requite them several minutes to talk over those answers with one another in modest groups (typically 2–iv students) and so reconvene and vote over again.

The questions posed to learners don't have to be MCQs: matching terms to definitions can be as constructive, as tin Parsons Problems (in which they are given the jumbled parts of a solution and must put them in the correct guild [31]). Whatever mix is used, the lesson must build toward them, and the question must probe for conceptual agreement and misconceptions (rather than check simple factual cognition).

Group discussion significantly improves students' agreement because it forces them to clarify their thinking, which tin exist enough to phone call out gaps in reasoning. Repolling the class and then lets the teacher know whether they can move on or whether further explanation is necessary. A last round of additional explanation and discussion after the correct answer is presented gives students 1 more chance to solidify their agreement.

Only could this exist a false positive? Are results improving because of increased understanding during word or just from a follow-the-leader consequence? [32] tested this by following the first question with a 2d one that students reply individually and constitute that peer discussion actually does enhance understanding, even when none of the students in a discussion grouping originally knew the correct answer.

It is important to have learners vote publicly and so that they can't modify their minds later on and rationalize it by making excuses to themselves like "I just misread the question." Some of the value of peer instruction comes from having their respond be wrong and having to think through the reasons why. This is called the "hypercorrection effect" [33]. Most people don't like to be told they're incorrect, and then it's reasonable to assume that the more confident someone is that the answer they've given in a test is correct, the harder information technology is to change their mind if they were actually wrong. However, it turns out that the contrary is true: the more confident someone is that they were correct, the more than probable they are not to repeat the mistake if they are corrected.

seven. Employ worked examples and concreteness fading

A worked example is a pace-by-step demonstration of how to solve a problem or exercise some task. By giving the steps in society, the instructor reduces the learner's cognitive load, which accelerates learning [27, 34].

All the same, worked examples become less effective as learners larn more expertise [35, 36], a phenomenon known as the "expertise reversal event." In cursory, as learners build their own mental models of what to do and how to do it, the detailed stride-by-step breakup of a worked instance starts to arrive the way. This is why tutorials and manual pages both demand to exist: what's appropriate for a newcomer is frustrating for an expert, while what jogs an skilful'south retention may be incomprehensible to a novice.

1 powerful way to use worked examples is to present a series of "faded examples" [37]. The first example in the serial is a consummate use of a problem-solving strategy; each subsequent example gives the learner more blanks to fill in. The fabric that isn't blank is frequently referred to as scaffolding since it serves the same purpose as the scaffolding gear up up temporarily at a building site.

Faded examples can be used in almost every kind of teaching, from sports and music to contract law. Someone education high school algebra might use them by commencement solving this equation for x:

  1. (410 + 8)/two = five
  2.     4x + 8 = 2 * 5
  3.     4x + eight = 10
  4.         iv10 = 10–8
  5.         4ten = 2
  6. x = ii/4
  7. ten = one/2

and so request learners to fill in the blanks in this:

  1. (3x – i) * 3 = 12
  2.     iiix – 1 = __/__
  3.     3x – 1 = 4
  4.         3ten = __
  5. x = __/3
  6. x = __

The adjacent problem might be this:

  1. (fivex + 1) * 3 = iv
  2.     vx + ane = __
  3.         5x = __
  4. x = __

Learners would finally be asked to solve an equation entirely on their own:

At each footstep, learners have a slightly larger problem to solve, which is less intimidating than a blank screen or a blank canvass of paper. Faded examples besides encourage learners (and instructors) to think about the similarities and differences between various approaches.

Worked examples are themselves an case of "concreteness fading" [38, 39], which describes the process of starting lessons with things that are specific or tangible and and so explicitly and gradually transitioning to more than abstruse and general concepts. Concreteness fading

  1. helps learners understand abstract symbols in terms of well-understood concrete objects,
  2. lets them leverage personal experience to footing abstract thinking,
  3. gives them a store of examples and mental images that they can fall back on when abstract symbols and reasoning fail, and
  4. helps learners effigy out what is specific to detail examples and what is generalizable across all bug of a sure kind.

One way to recollect this strategy is the acronym PETE (Problem, Explanation, Theory, Example), which encourages instructors to

  • describe an authentic problem that the lesson volition solve,
  • work through a solution to that problem,
  • explain the general theory that underpins that solution, and
  • work through a second case so that learners will understand which parts generalize.

viii. Evidence how to detect, diagnose, and correct common mistakes

It is almost oxymoronic to say that learners spend a lot of their time trying to effigy out what they've done wrong and fixing information technology: afterward all, if they knew and they had, they would already take moved on to the next subject. Most lessons devote little time to detecting, diagnosing, and correcting common mistakes, merely doing this will accelerate learning—not least by reducing the time that learners spend feeling lost and frustrated.

In Carroll and colleagues' "minimal manual" approach to training materials, every topic is accompanied by descriptions of symptoms learners might come across, their causes, and how to correct them [40]. When studying second language conquering, [41] identified six ways in which instructors can correct learners' mistakes:

  • conspicuously indicating that the learner is incorrect and provide the correct form,
  • repeating the learner's response with the mistake or mistakes corrected,
  • indicating that the learner's reply is incorrect (e.yard., past proverb, "Are y'all certain?") merely leaving the correction open up-ended,
  • posing leading questions (e.g., "Exercise we need the accented error or the relative fault here?"),
  • providing the get-go function of the right answer as a prompt and require the learner to fill up in the residue, and
  • repeating the learner's error, cartoon attention to it merely leaving the correction upwardly to them.

All of these can be used preemptively during the pattern of lessons. An introduction to chemical reactions, e.chiliad., could nowadays an incomplete calculation of enthalpy and ask the learner to fill it in (elicitation) or present the consummate calculation with errors, and so depict attention to those errors and right them i by one (recasting). All of these strategies provide retrieval practice past requiring learners to employ what they have just learned and encourage metacognition by requiring them to reflect on the limits and applicability of that knowledge.

9. Motivate and avoid demotivating

I of the strongest predictors of whether people learn something is their "intrinsic motivation," i.e., their innate want to master the material. The term is used in contract with "extrinsic motivation," which refers to behavior driven by rewards such every bit money, fame, and grades. Every bit [42] describes, the biggest motivators for adult learners are their sense of agency (i.e., the caste to which they experience that they're in control of their lives), the utility or usefulness of what they're learning, and whether their peers are learning the same things. Letting people go through lessons at the time of their own choosing, using accurate tasks, and working in small groups speak to each of these factors.

Conversely, it is very piece of cake for educators to demotivate their learners by being unpredictable, unfair, or indifferent. If in that location is no reliable relationship between effort and result, learners stop trying (a item case of a broader phenomenon called "learned helplessness"). If the learning surround is slanted to advantage some people at the expense of others, everyone will do less well on average [43], and if the lessons brand information technology articulate that the teacher doesn't care if people acquire things or not, learners will mirror that indifference.

One way to tell if learners are motivated or not is to look at the incidence of cheating. In classrooms, information technology is usually not a symptom of moral failing but a rational response to poorly designed incentives. As reported in [44], some things that educators practise that unintentionally encourage adulterous include

  • setting the cost of failure very high,
  • relying on unmarried cess mechanisms like multiple-choice tests, and
  • using arbitrary grading criteria.

Eliminating these from lessons doesn't guarantee that learners won't cheat but does reduce the incidence. (And, despite what many educators believe, adulterous is no more than likely online than in person [45].)

ten. Brand lessons inclusive

"Inclusivity" is a policy of including people who might otherwise be excluded. In STEM education, it means making a positive effort to exist more than welcoming to women, nether-represented racial or ethnic groups, people with various sexual orientations, the elderly, the physically challenged, the economically disadvantaged, and others.

The well-nigh important step is to stop thinking in terms of a "deficit model," i.e., to stop thinking that the members of marginalized groups lack something and are therefore responsible for not getting ahead. Assertive that puts the brunt on people who already have to work harder considering of the inequities they confront and (not coincidentally) gives those who benefit from the current arrangements an excuse not to wait at themselves too closely.

One axis of inclusive lesson design is physical: provide descriptive text for images and videos to help the visually challenged, closed captions for videos to help those with hearing challenges, and and so on. Another axis is social:

  • Use gender-neutral pronouns (e.g., a singular "they") or alternate between male and female pronouns.
  • Utilize culturally varied names in examples (e.g., Aisha and Boris rather than Alice and Bob).
  • Avoid examples based on oversimplified or exclusionary views of gender and orientation, such every bit assuming that in that location are but two genders, that gender is stock-still throughout a person's life, or that marriage is ever between people of dissimilar gender.

Committing fully to inclusive teaching may mean fundamentally rethinking content. [46], e.yard., explored two strategies for making computing instruction more culturally inclusive, each of which has its own traps for the unwary. The first strategy, customs representation, highlights students' social identities, histories, and community networks using afterschool mentors or role models from students' neighborhoods or activities that utilise community narratives and histories every bit a foundation for a computing project. The major chance is shallowness, e.g., using computers to build slideshows rather than practise any existent calculating.

The second strategy, computational integration, incorporates ideas from the learner's community, due east.g., by contrary engineering indigenous graphic designs in a visual programming environs. The major risk hither is cultural appropriation, east.yard., using practices without acknowledging origins. No affair which strategy is chosen, the first steps should always be to ask your learners and members of their community what they call back you lot ought to do and to requite them control over content and management.

Decision

Post-obit the 10 tips laid out above doesn't guarantee that your lessons volition be keen, merely it volition help ensure that they aren't bad. When it comes time to put them into practise, we recommend following something like the reverse design process developed independently past [47, 48, 49]:

  1. Effigy out who your learners are and what their goals are.
  2. Create the summative assessment for the lesson to requite yourself a target.
  3. Itemize the knowledge and skills that assessment relies on and create determinative assessments to check on each while learning is taking place.
  4. Social club those formative assessments in a way that respects their dependencies, i.e., then that they build on each other.
  5. Gauge the time required to cover each topic and perform its related determinative assessment, then cutting material that in that location isn't time for.
  6. Write lessons to connect each determinative assessment to the next (which is usually much easier than writing an entire lesson at in one case).
  7. Double-check your linguistic communication and examples to ensure that they address your learners' goals and won't demotivate them.
  8. Derive learning objectives and key points from the lesson to share with your learners and coinstructors. The former makes the lesson findable, while the latter gives you and your coinstructors a quick way to bank check what the lesson actually covers.
  9. Put everything online nether an open up license for other people to download, alter, and contribute to.

We also recommend that lessons exist designed for sharing with other instructors. Instructors often scour the web for ideas, and it's common for people to inherit courses from previous instructors. What is far less mutual is collaborative lesson construction, i.e., people taking material, improving it, and then offering their changes back to the customs. This model has served the open source software customs well, and as [nine] describes, it works every bit well for lessons—provided that materials are designed to make fine-grained collaboration piece of cake. Unfortunately, widely-used systems like Git are designed to handle text files and struggle with structured certificate formats similar Microsoft Word or PowerPoint. In addition, their learning bend is very steep and deters many potential users who have deadlines to run into or would rather think nigh engaging exercises than try to make sense of obscure error messages.

One key enabler of collaborative lesson construction is licensing. We strongly recommend using 1 of the Creative Commons family unit of licenses since they have been carefully vetted and are widely understood.

References

  1. i. Nuthall G. The Hidden Lives of Learners. Wellington: NZCER Press; 2007.
    • 2. Ambrose SA, Bridges MW, DiPietro M, Lovett MC, Norman MK. How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Education. Hoboken: Wiley; 2010.
      • 3. Bruyckere PD, Kirschner PA, Hulshof CD. Urban Myths nigh Learning and Teaching. London: Elsevier Academic Press; 2015.
        • 4. Didau D, Rose Northward. What Every Instructor Needs to Know About Psychology. Woodbridge: John Catt Educational; 2016.
          • 5. Brownish NCC, Wilson Grand. X Quick Tips for Educational activity Programming. PLoS Comput Biol. 2018;14(4):e1006023. pmid:29621229
            • View Article
            • PubMed/NCBI
            • Google Scholar
          • 6. Markovits RA, Weinstein Y. Can Cognitive Processes Help Explicate the Success of Instructional Techniques Recommended by Behavior Analysts? NPJ Science of Learning. 2018;3(1):2. pmid:30631463
            • View Article
            • PubMed/NCBI
            • Google Scholar
          • seven. Huston T. Teaching What You Don't Know. Cambridge: Harvard University Printing; 2012.
            • 8. Lang JM. Pocket-sized Teaching: Everyday Lessons from the Scientific discipline of Learning. Hoboken: Wiley; 2016.
              • View Article
              • Google Scholar
            • 9. Devenyi GA, Emonet R, Harris RM, Hertweck KL, Irving D, Milligan I, et al. Ten Simple Rules for Collaborative Lesson Development. PLoS Comput Biol. 2018;14(3):e1005963. pmid:29494585
              • View Commodity
              • PubMed/NCBI
              • Google Scholar
            • ten. Wilson G. Software Carpentry: Lessons Learned. F1000Research. 2016. pmid:24715981
              • View Article
              • PubMed/NCBI
              • Google Scholar
            • eleven. Wilson G. Education Tech Together. Raleigh: Lulu; 2018.
              • 12. Mayer RE. Multimedia Learning. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009.
                • xiii. Miller GA. The Magical Number 7, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information. Psychological Review. 1956;63(2):81–97. pmid:13310704
                  • View Article
                  • PubMed/NCBI
                  • Google Scholar
                • 14. Littky D. The Big Picture: Education Is Everyone's Business concern. Alexandria: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development; 2004.
                  • 15. Rohrer D, Dedrick RF, Stershic S. Interleaved Practice Improves Mathematics Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2015;107(3):900–908.
                    • View Article
                    • Google Scholar
                  • 16. Kang SHK. Spaced Repetition Promotes Efficient and Constructive Learning. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2016;3(1):12–nineteen.
                    • View Article
                    • Google Scholar
                  • 17. Miyatsu T, Nguyen K, McDaniel MA. Five Pop Study Strategies: Their Pitfalls and Optimal Implementations. Perspectives on Psychological Scientific discipline. 2018;13(iii):390–407. pmid:29716455
                    • View Article
                    • PubMed/NCBI
                    • Google Scholar
                  • eighteen. Weinstein Y, Madan CR, Sumeracki MA. Teaching the Scientific discipline of Learning. Cognitive Enquiry: Principles and Implications. 2018;3(1):ii. pmid:29399621
                    • View Article
                    • PubMed/NCBI
                    • Google Scholar
                  • 19. Weinstein Y, Sumeracki Thousand, Caviglioli O. Understanding How We Learn: A Visual Guide. Abingdon: Routledge; 2018.
                    • 20. Miller Medico. Minds Online: Didactics Effectively with Applied science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2016.
                      • 21. Karpicke JD, Roediger HL. The Critical Importance of Retrieval for Learning. Scientific discipline. 2008;319(5865):966–968. pmid:18276894
                        • View Commodity
                        • PubMed/NCBI
                        • Google Scholar
                      • 22. Rawson KA, Thomas RC, Jacoby LL. The Ability of Examples: Illustrative Examples Enhance Conceptual Learning of Declarative Concepts. Educational Psychology Review. 2014;27(3):483–504.
                        • View Article
                        • Google Scholar
                      • 23. Mayer RE, Moreno R. Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning. Educational Psychologist. 2003;38(1):43–52.
                        • View Commodity
                        • Google Scholar
                      • 24. Brookfield SD, Preskill South. The Word Book: fifty Great Ways to Get People Talking. Hoboken: Wiley; 2016.
                        • 25. Major CH, Harris MS, Zakrajsek T. Instruction for Learning: 101 Intentionally Designed Educational Activities to Put Students on the Path to Success. Abingdon: Routledge; 2015.
                          • 26. Rice GT. Striking Pause: 65 Lecture Breaks to Refresh and Reinforce Learning. Sterling: Stylus Publishing; 2018.
                            • 27. Atkinson RK, Derry SJ, Renkl A, Wortham D. Learning from Examples: Instructional Principles from the Worked Examples Research. Review of Educational Inquiry. 2000;70(two):181–214.
                              • View Article
                              • Google Scholar
                            • 28. Crouch CH, Mazur Eastward. Peer Instruction: Ten Years of Experience and Results. American Journal of Physics. 2001;69(9):970–977.
                              • View Article
                              • Google Scholar
                            • 29. Vickrey T, Rosploch K, Rahmanian R, Pilarz G, Stains Thousand. Inquiry-Based Implementation of Peer Instruction: A Literature Review. CBE–Life Sciences Education. 2015;xiv(one):es3. pmid:25713095
                              • View Article
                              • PubMed/NCBI
                              • Google Scholar
                            • 30. Porter L, Bouvier D, Cutts Q, Grissom S, Lee CB, McCartney R, et al. A Multi-Institutional Report of Peer Pedagogy in Introductory Computing. In: Proc. 2022 Technical Symposium on Computer Science Pedagogy (SIGCSE'sixteen). New York City: Association for Computing Machinery; 2016.
                              • 31. Parsons D, Haden P. Parson's Programming Puzzles: A Fun and Effective Learning Tool for First Programming Courses. In: Proc. 2006 Australasian Conference on Computing Education (ACE'06). Sydney: Australian Estimator Guild; 2006. p. 157–163.
                                • 32. Smith MK, Wood WB, Adams WK, Wieman CE, Knight JK, Club N, et al. Why Peer Discussion Improves Student Functioning on In-class Concept Questions. Science. 2009;323(5910):122–124. pmid:19119232
                                  • View Commodity
                                  • PubMed/NCBI
                                  • Google Scholar
                                • 33. Metcalfe J. Learning from Errors. Almanac Review of Psychology. 2016;68(1):465–489. pmid:27648988
                                  • View Article
                                  • PubMed/NCBI
                                  • Google Scholar
                                • 34. Paas F, Renkl A, Sweller J. Cerebral Load Theory and Instructional Pattern: Recent Developments. Educational Psychologist. 2003;38(1):1–4.
                                  • View Article
                                  • Google Scholar
                                • 35. Kalyuga S, Ayres P, Chandler P, Sweller J. The Expertise Reversal Effect. Educational Psychologist. 2003;38(1):23–31.
                                  • View Article
                                  • Google Scholar
                                • 36. Kalyuga S. Expertise Reversal Result and Its Implications for Learner-Tailored Instruction. Educational Psychology Review. 2007;19(iv):509–539.
                                  • View Article
                                  • Google Scholar
                                • 37. Schwonke R, Renkl A, Krieg C, Wittwer J, Aleven Five, Salden R. The worked-example event: Not an artefact of lousy control conditions. Computers in Man Behavior. 2009;25(2):258–266.
                                  • View Commodity
                                  • Google Scholar
                                • 38. Goldstone RL, Son JY. The Transfer of Scientific Principles Using Concrete and Idealized Simulations. Journal of the Learning Sciences. 2005;14(1):69–110.
                                  • View Article
                                  • Google Scholar
                                • 39. Fyfe ER, McNeil NM, Son JY, Goldstone RL. Concreteness Fading in Mathematics and Scientific discipline Instruction: a Systematic Review. Educational Psychology Review. 2014;26(1):ix–25.
                                  • View Article
                                  • Google Scholar
                                • xl. Carroll J. Creating Minimalist Education. International Journal of Designs for Learning. 2014;v(2).
                                  • View Commodity
                                  • Google Scholar
                                • 41. Lyster R, Ranta L. Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake: Negotiation of Form in Communicative Classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 1997;nineteen(1):37–66.
                                  • View Commodity
                                  • Google Scholar
                                • 42. Wlodkowski RJ, Ginsberg MB. Enhancing Adult Motivation to Learn: A Comprehensive Guide for Educational activity All Adults. Hoboken: Wiley; 2017.
                                  • 43. Wilkinson R, Pickett Chiliad. The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger. London: Bloomsbury Press; 2011.
                                    • 44. Lang JM. Adulterous Lessons: Learning from Academic Dishonesty. Cambridge: Harvard Academy Press; 2013.
                                      • 45. Beck V. Testing a Model to Predict Online Adulterous—Much Ado About Nada. Active Learning in Higher Didactics. 2014;15(1):65–75.
                                        • View Article
                                        • Google Scholar
                                      • 46. Lachney M. Computational Communities: African-American Cultural Capital in Figurer Science Education. Computer science Education. 2018;27(iii–4):175–196.
                                        • View Article
                                        • Google Scholar
                                      • 47. Wiggins M, McTighe J. Understanding by Design. Alexandria: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development; 2005.
                                        • 48. Biggs J, Tang C. Didactics for Quality Learning at Academy. New York Metropolis: Open University Press; 2011.
                                          • 49. Fink LD. Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses. Hoboken: Wiley; 2013.