Structures
Sign in

Learning strategies

Learning to learn inside the lesson: seven ways of learning, 32 structures

Every structure below is set up for your lesson in two minutes. The board tells the class what to do, runs the timer and makes the groups.

Try one on the boardWhich approach? · English, Grade 6 · 16 min · no account needed
Browse all structuresOr start from your subject ↓

School plan 2024–2028 · p. 3

“Learning to learn!”

Just like in 2020. And in 2016. And in 2012.

  • study day
  • advisory period
  • external course

That is how it reads in the school plan.

«Learning to learn» is in almost every school improvement plan, and in practice it becomes an advisory period or a course outside school. The research has said the opposite for twenty years: a way of learning sticks when it is practised inside the subject, with that lesson’s material, and when the teacher names it.

That is what a cooperative structure does. Each of the 32 structures below trains one way of learning, the board says which, and the class practises it with biology, with French, with history. This page lists the ways: what the student does, where the evidence comes from, and which structure goes with it.

7
ways of learning
20
strategies, in two tiers
32
structures

The evidence

Why inside the lesson, not next to it

Three sources schools cite themselves say the same thing. The Education Endowment Foundation (2018) recommends teaching strategies explicitly, modelling them and practising them in the subject, and warns against generic «learning to learn» programmes. Hattie and Donoghue (2016) conclude from 228 meta-analyses that strategies work per phase of learning and belong in the content, not in separate lessons. The Dutch Kennisrotonde answers a school’s question the same way: tie the strategy to the subject or the lesson goal, model it, let them practise.

A structure does exactly that. The material is the lesson’s, the way of learning is the structure, and the sentence the teacher says aloud («You pull it from memory without looking. What you retrieve yourself stays.») is its name. The same structure trains something different in English than in physics, and that is how it should be: cognitive strategies are mostly subject-bound; only planning and monitoring cut across subjects.

In the order of learning

The seven ways of learning, as the class hears them

On the board every structure shows «What you’re training now:» with the name and one sentence, in the class’s language. These are the seven, in the order of learning. Pick one: you see the strategies that belong to it and the structures that train them.

Way 1 of 7

What do you already know?

What you’re training now:
First you pull up what you already know. New things stick better to something familiar.
  • the structure’s main strategy
  • can train this strategy too
  • tier B: helps on top of the core, not instead of it

The names are written for the class, not for the textbook: «from memory, book closed» is what a fourteen-year-old hears when we say retrieval practice. Every structure’s page says which of the seven it trains, and which others it can train too.

Practical

Which strategy for which subject?

Per subject, the structures whose strategy was studied in that subject directly. The duration is a normal run, as the structure’s own page states it. Every structure works in other subjects too; this is where you start.

  • Which approach?

    sort mixed problems by approach, without solving

    Interleaved practice

    math · ± 16 min · alone, then pairs

  • Pair Coach

    solve aloud, the coach asks within half a minute

    Solve aloud with feedback

    math, grammar · ± 16 min · pairs

  • One by one

    one item at a time, the whole class, then look back

    Retrieve from memoryInterleaved practice

    math · ± 14 min · alone, whole class at once

  • Predict – Observe – Explain

    write what will happen, then watch, then explain

    Predict

    biology, physics, chemistry · ± 17 min · alone, then pairs

  • Five Whys

    five whys, each on the previous answer

    Ask why it is so

    sciences, history · ± 11 min · pairs

  • Inner & Outer Circle

    explain four times, to a new partner each time

    Explain in your own words

    sciences · ± 13 min · whole class, 10–36

  • Copy Me

    A says it step by step, B makes it from the words alone

    Words and pictures together

    languages · ± 14 min · pairs

  • Flashcards

    question on the front, answer on the back; wrong goes under

    Spaced practice

    vocabulary, formulas · ± 15 min · pairs

  • Movement Quiz

    quiz each other in changing pairs

    Retrieve from memory

    vocabulary · ± 12 min · whole class, changing pairs

  • Shuffle & Pick

    draw a card blind, answer, the fourth checks the back

    Answer first, then check

    vocabulary, concepts · ± 15 min · fours

  • Read and Ask

    A reads aloud, B answers without reading along

    Turn a text into questions

    history, geography · ± 11 min · pairs

  • Think, Write & Share

    everyone writes what they remember, the round adds

    Write down all you remember

    text subjects · ± 16 min · 2–6, default 4

  • The worst plan

    how to ruin it for sure; which of that you already do

    Plan first

    advisory · ± 19 min · alone or groups up to 8

The evidence per subject

Per subject: where the evidence is strongest

Math and science computation

Math, physics where there is calculating, economics. Three strategies were studied here directly: interleaved practice (Rohrer & Taylor 2007 had students practise mixed math problems and found double the score a week later), solving aloud with immediate feedback, and retrieval from memory. Start with Which approach?: the class sorts mixed problems without solving them, and practises exactly what goes wrong most on a test, seeing which type this is. Spaced practice works here too, but it needs a series of lessons, not one.

Natural sciences

Biology, chemistry, physics where it is about understanding. Predicting before you look, asking why it is so, and explaining in your own words were studied here (Chi and colleagues had students explain a text on the circulatory system line by line). Start with Predict – Observe – Explain: everyone writes what will happen, the class watches, a drawn pair explains. A scheme of the material helps as support, but whoever fills it in from memory practises more than whoever copies it.

Languages: grammar and skills

Solving aloud with feedback, spaced practice, words and pictures together. Start with Pair Coach: the solver says what they do at every step, the coach hears within half a minute where it sticks, and the roles swap. Copy Me has a class give instructions in whole sentences, with that week’s words in them. Interleaving is less studied in grammar than in math; we transfer it, the source does not.

Languages: vocabulary

Here the evidence is the simplest: retrieval from memory and spaced practice, together (Cepeda et al. 2006 on spacing; Roediger & Karpicke 2006 on retrieval). Start with Flashcards, the same set ten minutes every week, and let the cards that came back be the homework. Movement Quiz does the same with the whole class on its feet. Keyword mnemonics work briefly for concrete words and rate low overall (Dunlosky 2013); that is why they are not here.

Text subjects

History, geography, social studies, religious education: subjects where the material is a text. Turning the text into questions with the six words (who, what, where, when, why, how) was the strongest prompt in the review by Rosenshine, Meister and Chapman (1996); free recall and «why is that so?» were studied here too. Start with Read and Ask: A reads a passage aloud, B answers without reading along, A points to the sentence. Summarising comes back only when the class is taught it explicitly, and then as part of a scheme, not as the goal.

Advisory and self-regulation

Where schools put «learning to learn» today. Planning, monitoring and judging how well you know it are the strategies of the EEF guidance (2018), and Donker and colleagues (2014) found across 58 studies that strategy instruction raises achievement. But the source adds something: these strategies work in the subject lesson, with that subject’s material. Name them in advisory, train them in the subject lesson. The worst plan has a class write its success criteria in its own words; Pomodoro is a plan for time, not an evidenced learning strategy, and says so on its own page.

Getting started

Where do you start?

With the subject. Find your subject’s row in the table above and start that structure, with tomorrow’s material. The board tells the class what it is training; you say the sentence aloud. The first time, nothing more is needed.

Every structure has a main strategy, the star on its page, and one to four others it can train too. If you want another today, it sits under the structure’s «More settings»: one choice, and the board follows. After the lesson the reflection card asks one question about that strategy («What did the class retrieve without the book, and what did not come?»), and your class’s page will show which ways of learning it has trained this year, and which not yet.

Home sheets. For every way of learning there is one A4 to send home: the name that was on the board, the sentence you said, three steps to do it at home with this week’s material, and the source in one line. Twelve structures also have a worksheet of their own, on their page. All sheets together, for class and for home: worksheets.

Further reading. Why learning to learn belongs in the subject lesson and not in a course next to it, with the seven ways of learning and one example per subject: Learning to learn happens inside the lesson, not next to it.

Home sheets, per way of learning

All worksheets, for class and for home →

Pitfalls

What works less, and why it is recommended so often anyway

  • Summarising and taking notes.

    Low in the review by Dunlosky and colleagues (2013), unless the class is taught it explicitly. It feels like working, and it is copying. As part of a scheme the class fills in from memory it is something else: then it is retrieval.

  • Highlighting and rereading.

    Low. A highlighted page looks finished and the text feels familiar; recognising is not the same as being able to retrieve. The same ten minutes with the book closed give more.

  • A mind map as a study method.

    Karpicke and Blunt (2011) had students learn a science text with a concept map or by retrieving it; a week later retrieval won on every measure, including questions about links. Oakley says the same to students: notes, summaries and mind maps distract from the core. A scheme is support, not a substitute; that is why «organising in a scheme» sits in tier B here.

  • A keyword mnemonic.

    Works briefly for concrete words, rates low overall. For vocabulary, retrieval with spacing (flashcards, every week) is the best there is.

  • A separate learning-to-learn programme.

    The EEF warns against generic «learning to learn», Hattie and Donoghue advise against teaching strategies in separate lessons, the Kennisrotonde says: tie it to the subject. A school that buys a course outside the lesson does what all three advise against. A structure in the subject lesson does the opposite.

  • One strategy for everything.

    Retrieval is the best evidenced, but whoever only retrieves never practises applying, and a test asks exactly that. The seven stand in the order of learning; your class’s page shows which one is still missing.

Questions

Frequently asked questions

Do students need to know the names of the strategies?

The name on the board, yes: «from memory, book closed», not retrieval practice. The research on metacognition (EEF 2018) says a strategy that is named and modelled sticks better than one that merely happens. That is why the teacher says the sentence aloud, and why the same sentence returns at the end of the structure.

What does the class see, and what do I see?

The class sees «What you’re training now:» on the instruction slide with the name and one sentence, and at the end «You also practised how to learn: …». You see on the structure’s page which strategies it trains and how, after the lesson one reflection question about that strategy, and on your class’s page how often it has trained each way of learning this year.

Which strategy do I pick for test week?

Two weeks before: retrieval from memory with the department’s own material (Taking Turns, Knowledge Quiz, Flashcards), and once applying to a new case, because that is the level a test asks at. Rereading at home then drops by itself.

Why is «organising in a scheme» in tier B, when schemes are recommended everywhere?

Because the research keeps two things apart. Filling in a scheme with the book open is organising, and that helps moderately. Filling in the same scheme with the book closed is retrieval, and that helps a lot (Karpicke & Blunt 2011). In the lesson builder you choose per board scheme «from memory» or «with the book», and the board then says something different too.

Can one structure train more than one strategy?

Yes. Every structure has a main strategy and one to four others it can train too, each with one line on how. Pair Coach, for instance: solving aloud with feedback as its main one, and planning first when the pair fills in the sheet beforehand (what, who, when, why, what for). You choose which one the board names today.

Is this LudensFlow’s own method?

No. The strategies have authors and years, below under sources. What is ours are the structures that make them happen in a class of thirty, and the board that says what the class is training.

Underpinning

Sources

  • John Dunlosky, Katherine A. Rawson, Elizabeth J. Marsh, Mitchell J. Nathan & Daniel T. Willingham, Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques, Psychological Science in the Public Interest 14(1) (2013), 4–58: ten techniques rated; high for practice testing and distributed practice, low for summarising, highlighting, rereading and the keyword mnemonic.
  • Jeffrey D. Karpicke & Janell R. Blunt, Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping, Science 331(6018) (2011), 772–775.
  • Henry L. Roediger III & Jeffrey D. Karpicke, Test-enhanced learning: taking memory tests improves long-term retention, Psychological Science 17(3) (2006), 249–255.
  • Olusola O. Adesope, Dominic A. Trevisan & Narayankripa Sundararajan, Rethinking the use of tests: a meta-analysis of practice testing, Review of Educational Research 87(3) (2017), 659–701.
  • Nicholas J. Cepeda, Harold Pashler, Edward Vul, John T. Wixted & Doug Rohrer, Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: a review and quantitative synthesis, Psychological Bulletin 132(3) (2006), 354–380.
  • Doug Rohrer & Kelli Taylor, The shuffling of mathematics practice problems boosts learning, Instructional Science 35(6) (2007), 481–498.
  • Michelene T. H. Chi, Nicholas de Leeuw, Mei-Hung Chiu & Christian LaVancher, Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding, Cognitive Science 18(3) (1994), 439–477.
  • Michael Pressley, Mark A. McDaniel, James E. Turnure, Eileen Wood & Maheen Ahmad, Generation and precision of elaboration: effects on intentional and incidental learning, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 13(2) (1987), 291–300.
  • Barak Rosenshine, Carla Meister & Saul Chapman, Teaching students to generate questions: a review of the intervention studies, Review of Educational Research 66(2) (1996), 181–221.
  • Logan Fiorella & Richard E. Mayer, Eight ways to promote generative learning, Educational Psychology Review 28 (2016), 717–741.
  • Andrew C. Butler & Henry L. Roediger III, Feedback enhances the positive effects and reduces the negative effects of multiple-choice testing, Memory & Cognition 36(3) (2008), 604–616.
  • Megan A. Smith, Janell R. Blunt, Joshua W. Whiffen & Jeffrey D. Karpicke, Does providing prompts during retrieval practice improve learning?, Applied Cognitive Psychology 30 (2016), 544–553.
  • John C. Nesbit & Olusola O. Adesope, Learning with concept and knowledge maps: a meta-analysis, Review of Educational Research 76(3) (2006), 413–448.
  • Katherine A. Rawson, Ruthann C. Thomas & Larry L. Jacoby, The power of examples: illustrative examples enhance conceptual learning of declarative concepts, Educational Psychology Review 27(3) (2015), 483–504.
  • John Dunlosky & Katherine A. Rawson, Overconfidence produces underachievement: inaccurate self evaluations undermine students’ learning and retention, Learning and Instruction 22(4) (2012), 271–280.
  • Anouk S. Donker, Hester de Boer, Danny Kostons, Charlotte C. Dignath van Ewijk & Margaretha P. C. van der Werf, Effectiveness of learning strategy instruction on academic performance: a meta-analysis, Educational Research Review 11 (2014), 1–26.
  • John Hattie & Gregory M. Donoghue, Learning strategies: a synthesis and conceptual model, npj Science of Learning 1 (2016), 16013.
  • Education Endowment Foundation, Metacognition and self-regulated learning: guidance report (2018, updated).
  • Tim Surma, Kristel Vanhoyweghen, Dominique Sluijsmans, Gino Camp, Daniel Muijs & Paul A. Kirschner, Wijze lessen: twaalf bouwstenen voor effectieve didactiek, Ten Brink (2019).
  • Barbara Oakley & Terrence Sejnowski, Learning How to Learn, TarcherPerigee (2018); Barbara Oakley, Beth Rogowsky & Terrence Sejnowski, Uncommon Sense Teaching, TarcherPerigee (2021).
  • Kennisrotonde (NRO, Netherlands), answers on self-regulation and reading comprehension in secondary school: tie strategies to the subject or the lesson goal, model them, let students practise.

Compiled by Oksana Oliinyk ·

No structure picked yet? The assistant on the structures page chooses one by your subject, your class and what the lesson has to do, and sets it up for the board.

Choose with the assistant