Expectations Excel—Rules Reek! by Willy Wood

by Willy Wood


There are so many things to do in the first few days of a new school year–students’ names to learn, routines to establish, class goals to go over, etc.  Of all of the many tasks that must be done, one that is absolutely crucial is the establishment of classroom expectations–that is, how we act here, and why. What expectations are set, and how they are set are key components of establishing the classroom culture.  This is something you need to get right, or it could negatively affect the whole school year!


Expectations vs. Rules


First, we need to clarify the difference between what I call “expectations” and what I call “rules,” (some people use these terms differently than I do, and some people even use them synonymously) and why, in general terms, I favor expectations over rules.

When I talk about a classroom “expectation,” I mean “a general statement of value that serves to guide behavior.”  When I talk about “rules,” I mean specific statements of “do this, don’t do that” that are almost invariably coupled with “consequences” (read, “punishments,” though it’s not PC to use that word anymore).

For example, let’s say your school last year had a problem with students calling other students names or using put-downs in the halls and in class, and you’ve decided that this must be addressed at the outset this school year.  Using my definitions of “expectations” and “rules,” an expectation would be something like “Show respect for everyone in the classroom at all times” or, more simply, “Be respectful.”  A “rules and consequences” approach to the same issue might produce something along the lines of “Don’t call other students names or use put-downs.  Students who break this rule will be given a warning the first time.  If the behavior is repeated, the offending student will be given one day’s detention.”

So, why do I favor the first (expectations) example over the second (rule and consequence) example?  Some would criticize an expectation like “Be respectful” as being vague.  “Everyone has their own ideas about what respect looks like,” they might say.  My response?  “Exactly!  Which means that we would be forced, as a class, to define “respect” by talking about or, better yet, acting out, what respect looks like and sounds like, perhaps generating a T Chart for “looks like” and “sounds like” as we go.

In other words, we would go through a very conscious process of definition.  But here’s the point: It’s not the definition that we arrive at that’s important; it’s the process that’s important and that builds community.  It’s a lot quicker and easier (in the short term, anyway) to simply produce a rule saying “don’t call people names” and punish those who do it, but what do students end up with in such a situation?  With just another case (in an endless string of such cases throughout their schooling) where the teacher has the power and wields that power, and where the students are not asked or expected to think for themselves and to consider how their actions affect others.

We would go through the same process for defining each expectation (a total of perhaps 3 to 5 should cover all the territory necessary–more would be counterproductive).  Yes, this takes time, but believe me, it’s time well spent, as it pays off in better community and cooperation throughout the school year.


Generating Expectations


OK, let’s dig a little deeper into the topic of expectations–why we need them, how to set them, and how to make sure they are implemented.

Let’s start with the easy one first–why do we need expectations?  Well, whenever any group of people have a “contract,” whether business or social, to get together regularly over an extended period of time (a work arrangement, a living arrangement, a school arrangement, etc.), it is necessary, for things to run smoothly, if everyone is on the same page about what the goals of the group are and what values need to be established and adhered to in order for the group to meet its goals.

The broad, general goals in a classroom situation are the same everywhere–that the classroom would be a place where the teacher can teach and the learners can learn to their maximum ability and where they can feel safe (both physically and emotionally) to do so.  Of course, at a more specific level, there will be different goals in a high school science class than in a third grade classroom, but these more specific goals are described in the curriculum.  Expectations are those statements of intent that guide the group as they strive to achieve the large, general goals of the group.  To fail to guide this process, to simply let the group dynamics develop as they will, is to live in hope (or denial).  Rarely will things turn out well in such a case.  So, how to go about it?

One approach that I like and have seen work very well (not the only way to do it, by any means) is called the Living Above the Line approach.  This approach to developing responsible behavior originated, surprisingly, from a course for entrepreneurs and business people called Money & You, but I first read about it in the book Quantum Teaching.  In this method, the teacher describes the general goals of the classroom, which I defined above as “that the classroom would be a place where the teacher can teach and the learners can learn to their maximum ability and where they can feel safe (both physically and emotionally) to do so” (of course, your definition might be different) and leads the students in a discussion of what the classroom would have to look like and sound like in order for those general goals to be met.  (Note: the examples I am about to walk you through would be what this process might look like in a high school classroom.)  As good ideas are thrown out, they need to be captured in some way.  Making a large T-chart (on chart paper, on the white board, chalk board, or Smart Board) with the headings “Looks Like” and “Sounds Like” works well.  This discussion is the source from which the classroom expectations will spring.

The teacher then takes a large piece of paper (such as chart paper) and draws a heavy line horizontally across the middle of the paper, dividing it in half.  Above this line, the teacher writes “Living Above the Line.”  Below the line, he or she writes, “Living Below the Line.”  Using the ideas generated from the previous discussion as a guide, the group looks for words that would encapsulate what being responsible to the group’s goals would look and sound like (in effect, you are summarizing the previous discussion).  When good descriptive words or phrases are generated, they go “above the line” on the new chart.  The opposites of these words or phrases go “below the line” on the chart.

For example, while describing the difference between expectations and rules/consequences above, I said that one expectation that might be generated would be “Be Respectful.”  If, during the “looks like/sounds like” discussion, your class generated items such as “not calling other people names,” or “listening intently when someone is talking,” or “not interrupting,” or “not putting others down when we disagree with them,” then all of these (and many others) could be summarized with one expectation–that we be respectful of others.  See how that works?  So, you would write “Be Respectful” above the line on the poster.  What would be the flip side of being respectful?  Well, obviously, be disrespectful, right?  So you might write “Being Disrespectful” below the line.

Some other expectations that might be generated could include “Being Accountable for Our Actions,” or “Looking for Solutions.”  The flip side of “Being Accountable for Our Actions”  might be “Laying Blame” or “Justifying One’s Actions” or “Denying Responsibility” (you might choose to write all of these below the line–there’s no rule that says you have to have a one-to-one correspondence between Above the Line and Below the Line statements).  The flip side of “Looking for Solutions” might be “Always Focusing on Problems” or “Giving Up.”  The goal here is to summarize the entire “looks like/sounds like” discussion in 3-5 Living Above the Line statements and to get them on the poster, plus their opposites.


Expectations Without Modeling Equals…Nada!


The next step is Modeling, and in my experience, this is the step teachers skip most often.  Don’t do it!  Skipping this step can blow the whole exercise.  Here’s how it works: you may notice that the expectations generated by the previous step are very broad and general.  By the way, they are NOT vague, as some people will claim.  If something is vague, that means it’s unclear.  There’s nothing unclear about “Be Responsible”; we all know, in general, what that means.  But this statement definitely is general, so the next step is to generate some specific examples of what “Be Responsible” would look like in a school setting.  This is where modeling comes in.

The most effective way to do this is through role playing.  Take some of the initial situations generated by your “looks like/sounds like” discussion and have students act them out while the other students watch.  For example, if you are making “Be Responsible” more specific, you might act out what inattentive listening looks like and point out how that is disrespectful to the speaker and that that kind of behavior is Below the Line behavior (disrespect), then act out what attentive listening looks and sounds like, discuss why this is responsible behavior, and point out that this goes Above the Line on the chart.  You may not act out scenarios for each expectation all at once, but you could spread this role playing out over the first week or even two weeks of school.  These role plays help students to begin to internalize these important distinctions and to take ownership of their own behavior and the behavior of those around them.

The final step, as with anything, is Follow-Through.  As you go through the year, whenever a situation arises that demonstrates Below the Line behavior, simply refer the student to the chart and ask them, “Are you above the line right now, or below the line?”  Work with students to continue to refine these distinctions across the school year, and you will be astounded how much ownership they begin to take of their behavior.

Now, let me anticipate a few objections that some of you have probably been thinking about while you’ve been reading.  First of all, some of you who teach younger children may have been thinking, “Well, that’s all fine and dandy, but my kids are too young for all this deep thinking.”  Of course, such awareness is developmental, but the process can still work with younger children.  You, as the adult, will have to guide their thinking more, but make sure that they do as much of the processing as possible.  Don’t do the thinking for them, or they really won’t take responsibility for their own behavior.

Some of you are also probably thinking, “OK, if you have to do all this modeling and role playing in order to make the general expectations more specific anyway, why not just take the specifics and turn them into rules with consequences in the first place?”  For example, instead of saying, “Be Respectful,” why not just have rules such as “Don’t call others names” or “listen attentively when others talk,” along with consequences for when these rules are abused?  I know that the distinction may be difficult right now, but it really does matter how you go about this. So, let me break it down for you.  There are actually ten reasons why rules, as defined above, don’t work well in the classroom.


Ten Reasons Rules Reek


Reason #1: The first problem that I see with rules occurs when a teacher (or an administrator, if done on a school-wide basis) decides in advance (for example, in August) what rules are going to be used in that classroom or school for the year.  Why is this a problem?  Because you haven’t met the kids yet!  You simply don’t know if a situation will even come up during the year, so why make up a rule for it?  You’re just guessing!

“Now wait a minute,” you say, “I’ve been teaching for X many years, and I know certain situations that come up every year with this age of kids.  Why not go ahead and create a rule and a clear consequence and communicate that to the kids right off the bat?  Why not head this particular problem off at the pass?”  I can think of at least two good reasons.

First, while there probably are certain issues that come up virtually every year with a certain age group of kids, you still can’t be 100% certain that that issue will come up this year with this group of kids, so why expect trouble before it happens?  Isn’t this just one more form of low expectations?  Maybe this year’s group won’t exhibit this problem, so a rule isn’t necessary.

Second, you came up with the rule and consequence.  Students had no say in creating the rule, its wording, or what consequence might logically flow from breaking the rule, so they will have no sense of ownership of the rule.  And if they don’t own it, it’s hard to get them to live by it.


Reason #2: OK, let’s say you decide to avoid Reason #1, as described above, by waiting to create the rules collaboratively with students at the beginning of the school year.  Obviously, you know that I think this is a good idea, and it certainly is one way to avoid the pitfalls described in the previous paragraph.

However, you do need to be careful here.  While it is a good idea to create your classroom expectations collaboratively, you need to do so in such a way that students actually have to think about their responsibilities in a classroom setting.  Unfortunately, in most classrooms where teachers ask students what “rules” they think they should have in the classroom, students don’t think.  Instead, they remember.

What I mean by this is that most students simply think back to what rules they have had in previous classrooms and parrot those back to this year’s teacher, who is suddenly inundated with contributions such as “Don’t chew gum!” “Don’t run in the hallway!” and “Don’t be tardy to class!”  Do they really care about these issues?  No, they do not.  Have they broken these very same rules before?  Of course they have!  Are they truly thinking about their responsibilities as participants in a learning community and offering honest guidelines for that behavior?  Certainly not!

This is why simply throwing the floor open to students and asking them to come up with rules and then writing down what they come up with is doomed to failure.  The pathway to success is to have a much deeper discussion about the goals of a classroom and the responsibilities of the people in that classroom and to create 3-5 broad expectations from that discussion.  Most teachers don’t want to invest the time it takes to do it right, and everyone suffers all year as a consequence.


Reason #3: The third reason rules reek is that the “consequences” (read, “punishments”) imposed for breaking the rule almost always deal only with the symptoms of the problem and not with the problem itself.  This is true whether the rule and consequence was developed by the teacher alone prior to the start of school or whether it was developed collaboratively with students at the beginning of the school year

Unfortunately, no one usually makes any attempt to go beyond the surface behavior and the predetermined consequence to think about why the student has chosen this behavior.  Did he/she just forget that the rule existed (and therefore a reminder might be enough)?  Is he/she lacking a key social skill that makes it difficult for that student to follow the rule?  Is something going on at home that has led to this behavior?  If we ask these kinds of questions–if we are conscious when we deal with the issue–often, interesting pathways open up for dealing with the problem at its root rather than simply applying a predetermined consequence as an unconscious, knee-jerk reaction where no one learns anything and the behavior is likely to be repeated.


Reason #4:  I stated above (in Reason #3) that the consequences imposed for breaking a rule almost always deal only with the symptoms of the problem and not with the problem itself at its root.  If we focus only on the symptoms and don’t bother to investigate the real reason for the behavior, we’re working in the dark and our hopes for improving behavior in the long run are a crap shoot.  Since root causes often vary for offenses that look the same when the behavior is committed (the symptoms), having a pre-determined consequence for breaking a particular rule may or may not improve behavior in the long run because it may or may not deal with the root cause.

For example, if the behavior is repeatedly being tardy for first period, the behavior may be due to a number of causes.  If a student is consistently tardy because he or she is simply loitering in the halls and socializing, that’s one thing, and a consequence of having to stay late after school might be an appropriate reminder to the student to better manage his or her time (along with teaching the student some good time-management strategies).

On the other hand, if a student is consistently late for first period because he lives with a single mother who is an alcoholic and therefore is often in no condition in the morning to get her son or daughter to school on time, that’s another thing entirely.  Having a child stay after school will do absolutely nothing to address the issue causing the tardiness.  Looked at in this light, we need to acknowledge that appropriate consequences may vary for the same offense.  This is logical and allows us to act like people who actually care enough for our students to try to find out what’s going on in their lives rather than people who would rather hide behind some rule with a pre-determined consequence that may make no sense in certain situations.  So, hard and fast consequences for breaking rules don’t make sense.


Reason #5:  This reason is simple—you simply can’t have a specific rule and consequence for every situation that could go wrong.  If you try to create a rule to cover all situations, you will end up with so many rules that students can’t possibly keep them all straight, and as a result, they will simply forget most of them most of the time.  This is one reason that expectations are superior to rules and consequences.  A single expectation such as “Be respectful” covers literally hundreds of situations, from name-calling to bullying to staying on task with academic work.  In each of these situations, students can be referred to the overarching expectation that is being violated and be made aware of how their behavior is not living up to the standard and what needs to be done instead.  Three to five expectations can easily take the place of 30 or 40 rules.


Reason #6:  This is one of the most important reasons that rules don’t work.  In a classroom where the teacher has established a number of specific rules and consequences, he or she ends up spending a great deal of time playing “cop and lawyer.”  The more specific you make the rule, the more clear it is to students exactly where you have drawn the line in the sand.  This allows those students inclined to do so to “push your buttons” by putting their toe right up against the line without crossing over it (or just barely crossing over it, and then they want to argue with you that they didn’t cross the line).

For example, let’s say you are a secondary teacher and you have a rule that states “Students should be in class and prepared to begin as soon as the bell rings.”  What do you mean by “prepared to begin”?  Does this mean that they are in their seats?  In their seats with their books out on their desks?  In their seats with their journals open and ready to write to the journal prompt on the board?  If you don’t specify exactly what you mean by this phrase, students will argue with you throughout the year about it.  In other words, the students are in control in such a situation.  And the same goes for any rule—you will find yourself having to make the rule more and more specific over time to try to explain completely what you mean by the rule.

A much better way to go about things is to have a broader expectation such as “Be responsible” that covers a multitude of situations, and this would include being ready to learn when class begins.  You don’t have to argue about it.  You simply talk to the student and ask them what responsible behavior would look like at the beginning of a class period.  Of course, they probably already know that being in their seats and ready to learn at the beginning of class is one manifestation of being a responsible student, but putting the onus on the student to be consciously aware of and reflective about his or her behavior is much better than simply lecturing a student or punishing a student who falls short of a specific rule.


Reason #7:  As I stated above in Reason #6, with rules, a teacher ends up spending all his or her time playing cop and lawyer.  By this, I mean that, the more specifically worded your rules are, the more students tend to argue about interpretations of particular words.  And if you then change the wording to make it even more specific (to try to avoid this argument in the future), you draw the line in the sand more and more clearly.  On the surface, this might seem to be a good thing, but it’s not.  That leads us to reason #7: Since students are aware of exactly where the “line” is, they are in charge of “pushing your buttons.”  They know exactly how far they can go without putting their toes over the line, so they have the power to jerk you around.

For example, let’s use the rule given above: “Students should have all learning materials with them at the beginning of each class period.”  A student may interpret this rule to mean, “Have your textbooks and any homework you need to turn in.”  The teacher, however, may have in mind, in addition to these items, academic notebooks or journals, notes from the previous class, paper to write on, and something to write with.  If a student is reprimanded for not having all of these items or given a consequence, the student may argue that the rule doesn’t specifically say anything about notebooks or paper or pens and pencils.  If the teacher then rewrites to rule to specifically list these items (“Students should have all learning materials, including textbooks, homework, academic notebooks, journals, paper, and writing utensils with them at the beginning of each class period”), the student intent on continually engaging in small power struggles might come to class without paper or a pencil, then, if called on it, quickly borrow the missing materials from another student.  He or she now has all the materials required, and if the teacher wants to hold the student to the letter of the law (“You didn’t have those things with you at the beginning of the period”), he or she comes off as being dictatorial and anal-retentive and risks escalating a tiny issue into something that could spread and ruin classroom community.  To avoid such situations, the answer is not to get more specific with the rule; the answer is to get more general—that is, to get rid of the rule and replace it with a broader expectation.  Then students who do not come prepared for class can be engaged in a productive dialogue focused on their actions and on how their behavior is or is not living up to expectations.


Reason #8:  The eighth reason why rules reek is one many teachers have experienced: As done traditionally, when the teacher applies the pre-determined consequence for a violation of a rule, students are not asked to think about their own behavior or what they could have done differently.  The consequence is just doled out.  This allows the student to avoid taking responsibility for his actions.  How many times have we heard students in the halls talking to their friends, saying something along the lines of, “Do you know what Teacher X gave me?  Two days detention!”  The point is that the student is blaming the teacher for the situation instead of taking responsibility.  In a system where students are asked to reflect on how they are not living up to expectations, this kind of shifting of responsibility is not allowed to happen.


Reason #9:  Our ninth reason for why rules reek is this: When consequences for certain actions are pre-determined, students aren’t asked to think about, generate, and accept appropriate consequences for their behavior.  As a result, students aren’t conscious during the whole process.  They never truly have to think about the rule they violated, how their actions might have affected others, and what kind of consequence might be appropriate to help them remember not to repeat the offense.  Not only do they not accept any responsibility for their actions (reason #8), but they don’t take any ownership of the solution.


Reason #10:  This reason is the most important one of all: In classrooms where there are a lot of rules and consequences, especially when those rules are developed by the school or the teacher with little or no input from students, students don’t learn.  By that I mean that their behavior does not improve over the long term.  This is true because everything becomes a power struggle and a blame game, and every conflict situation is dealt with as a short-term problem rather than a long-term opportunity to learn new, more effective behaviors.


So, there they are: 10 Reasons Rules Reek.  Here’s a quick recap of the whole list:


1.  If you make rules in advance, you don’t even know if the situation will ever come up.

2.  Students don’t feel any ownership of rules unless they have a hand in creating them and do so through an honest process focused on creating the kind of learning community they want to be part of.

3.  Rules and consequences only focus on the symptoms of problems, not on the root causes of the problems, and they keep teachers from investigating what those root causes might be.

4.  Having pre-determined, one-size-fits-all consequences ignores the fact that while outside behavior may look the same between two situations, the reasons behind the behavior may differ and therefore, appropriate consequences may need to differ for the same offense.

5.  You simply can’t have a specific rule and consequence for every situation.  You would end up with a hundred rules, and no one could every remember them all.

6.  With lots of rules and consequences, teachers spend all of their time playing cop and lawyer.

7.  With specific rules, students know exactly where the “line in the sand” is, and they are then put in a position of power where they can (if they choose to) “push your buttons” by getting as close to the line as possible without actually going over it.

8.  With consequences for rule-breaking imposed by the teacher, students rarely take responsibility for their own behavior.

9.  With rules as traditionally done, students don’t have to generate appropriate consequences for their behavior, so they are not conscious participants in the process.

10.  In classrooms where rules and consequences are used to deal with short-term problems, students don’t reflect on their behavior and therefore they don’t learn and become more self-disciplined in the long term.


Using Expectations as a Framework for Long-Term Behavioral Improvement


OK, I’ve laid out for you a number of reasons why I think rules and consequences are detrimental to long-term improvement in student behavior.  Now, let’s take the discussion to the next level.  How can teachers use broad expectations to head off a great deal of problems in the first place, to effectively deal with those problems that do arise in a way that’s thoughtful and keeps the focus on classroom community, and to help students grow in their ability to monitor and improve their own behavior over the long run.

First of all, how can having expectations (that are developed cooperatively by the teacher and students) keep problems from happening in the first place (a proactive benefit)?  Well, it all depends on how those expectations are established in the first place.  At the beginning of this article, I went over this process in a fairly detailed way, so I won’t bore you by repeating all of that.  So just let me summarize.

The first step, in the first few days of school, is to have a discussion about the goals of the class and how those goals can best be achieved.  During this discussion, it is important to capture what such a classroom (where the class’s ability to learn is maximized) would look and sound like.  From this material, the next step is to generalize all of those specifics into 3-5 generalizations that capture the essence of the needed behavior.  These become the class’s expectations.


My ideal list of expectations might be as follows:


  • Be safe
  • Be responsible
  • Be respectful
  • Be supportive


I think that these four statements could adequately cover every possible behavior situation in the classroom.  “Be safe” and “Be responsible” focus on the individual learner.  “Be safe” means to make sure that your physical actions keep you and those around you safe and healthy.  “Be responsible” focuses on your attitudes and actions toward your work and your own behavior.  The other two focus more on the learner’s relationships with others.  “Be respectful” generally plays out in how a student interacts verbally with others—respecting the ideas, opinions, and time of those around them.  And “Be supportive” takes it one step further—not only refraining from disrespecting others’ ideas, opinions, and time, but actively supporting them as learners.  I think that covers the territory.

The next step, as I explained previously, is modeling what each of those general statements means in certain situations.  Students need to see and hear, in specific scenarios, what these general statements mean.  So, for example, in working on “Be respectful,” the teacher may have a student model answering a question in class and have another student interrupt the first student (modeling the “wrong” or disrespectful way to interact).  The teacher could then have the same two students repeat the performance, with the second student showing what good, polite listening looks like, then modeling how to respond and respectfully disagree after letting the first student have her say.  This “wrong way/right way” method of modeling is extremely effective in getting across to students the standards of behavior expected in the class.  By modeling the “wrong” behaviors, students get specific examples of what behavior is “off limits,” and they are then shown exactly how to do it instead (establishing new skills).  The process laid out here can effectively cut behavior problems by 70%–before anyone gets in trouble!

The second way establishing expectations such as the four listed above helps to produce a calm, productive classroom is that they give both teacher and students a framework for dealing with problems when they do arise (reactive benefits).  Let’s say that a student, despite the modeling discussed above, does not do his share of the expected work on a cooperative group assignment.  In the traditional classroom, this student might be lectured or punished (either by receiving a bad grade or some other means) as a way to try to make him aware of his transgression.  But, as anyone who has ever dealt with students knows, lectures are often ignored and punishments are usually resented.  This whole method of dealing with the problem has a negative/punitive feeling to it.

But if expectations were established at the beginning of the year, the approach to this problem looks very different.  First, the teacher asks the student to reflect on his performance in light of the class expectations.  The goal here is to get him to see for himself that his actions were both irresponsible (not doing his own work) and unsupportive of his group (making them do more than their fair share).  One or more of the student’s team members can even be brought into the discussion to bring some peer pressure to bear.  If the student owns his failure to meet expectations, a plan of action for next time can be developed.  Do you see how this approach makes so much more sense?  Instead of the teacher straining the teacher/student relationship by playing the punishing authority role, the teacher actually is allowed to be a teacher (in this case, teaching the student what he needs to learn to be a better teammate—a truly valuable life skill).  After all, the point should be that we don’t want the student to pay, we want to help him learn, and our class expectations are our most important tool for achieving this goal.

Of course, I don’t mean to imply that this approach will always work.  Nothing works 100% of the time.  The student may be intent on sabotaging his group’s work or on refusing to do any work of his own, and his reasons may be complex and deep-seated.  In such a case, other measures will need to be taken.  But again, by constantly referring to the class expectations whenever a problem arises, the teacher uses this framework to help students internalize what acceptable behavior looks and sounds like.  With such an approach, over time most students begin to develop more self-awareness about their behavior and become more productive members of the classroom community.


I hope the ideas in this article have been helpful as you reflect about behavior issues and community in your classrooms.  If you have any question on this topic, or any other, feel free to e-mail me at willy.wood@yahoo.com.




Willy Wood serves as President of Open Mind Technologies, Inc., an educational consulting firm.  In addition to doing workshops on the brain and effective teaching practices for teachers both nationally and internationally, he publishes a regular e-newsletter entitled Neuro News.  Willy Wood is the co-author, with Rich Allen, of The Rock ‘N’ Roll Classroom: Using Music to Manage Mood Energy, and Learning.


Will the Flipped Classroom Be a Flop? by Willy Wood

by Willy Wood


Every year there’s a new educational approach/trend/fad that everyone gets excited about.  In recent years, “hot” topics have included multiple intelligences, differentiated instruction, RTI, and Common Core State Standards, to name just a few.  One of the current hot topics is the “flipped” classroom.  Many people, looking for a more effective approach to teaching and learning, are taking up this approach.  Magazine articles (mostly laudatory) about the approach are popping up like mushrooms after a spring shower.  Sixty Minutes even did a segment on it!


What Is the Flipped Classroom, and Why Is It Attractive?


Before we get any further along, allow me to take just a moment to explain what the flipped classroom model is, for those who haven’t heard about it yet.  The flipped classroom, according to an infographic on the topic created by Knewton.com, “inverts traditional teaching methods, delivering instruction online outside of class and moving ‘homework’ into the classroom.”  Many people ascribe the beginnings of flip teaching to Jonathan Bergman and Aaron Sams from Woodland Park High School in Woodland Park, Colorado, who started using technology to record their classroom lectures and PowerPoint presentations so that students who missed class could catch up. They then began exporting more and more of the “input” part of their instruction for all of their students so they could spend more time in class on elaboration and giving students help.

In 2004, Salman Khan, a Bengali-American educator, entrepreneur, and former hedge fund analyst, began to record videos for a young cousin so that she could learn concepts she was struggling with at school by watching the video lectures multiple times.  Kahn has since founded the Khan Academy, a free online education platform to produce and disseminate the videos.  These videos (over 4,000 have been recorded to date) have become very popular for teachers (especially secondary math and science teachers) to use as their outside-of-class lecture material in the flipped classroom model.  Kahn’s work was the subject of the Sixty Minutes video mentioned above.

Why such interest in this new model (beyond the usual “shiny new object” cachet that always attracts the first-adopters)?  There are probably a couple of reasons beyond any educational value.  First, one can do multiple “takes” of a video lecture, whereas one is stuck with a single take in the classroom.  There are no students whispering, passing notes, or chewing gum while you talk.  There are no interruptions.  And, probably most importantly, it uses technology.  There seem to be many people in education today who think that anything that involves technology is automatically an improvement (sometimes it is, sometimes it’s not).



Basic Components of Teaching and Learning


But all of that really pales in comparison to the central question: is this model an effective model for teaching and learning?  To begin to examine whether this model is one you should be adopting, let’s look at the basic components of any teaching model.

At the most basic level, in order for someone to learn something, he or she needs to:


  • input the material to be learned and go through initial sensory processing of that material (the most common input methods are still listening to/viewing a lecture or reading the new material);
  • go through a period of elaboration, where he or she works with the material to process it more deeply for full understanding (this may be done individually or in group activities); and
  • go through a period of practice (for skills) or application (for content knowledge) in order to cement the new learning in long-term memory.


The old, “traditional” teaching model did the inputting both in class (usually through lectures) and out (assigned reading).  In addition, some class time (that not taken up by input) was spent on elaboration and practice/application.  Homework was usually split between further elaboration activities, practice, and more input (out of class reading).  There are many problems with this traditional model, and they have been written about extensively by me and many others for years, so I won’t go through the whole laundry list again here.


The Flipped Classroom Model vs. Traditional In-Class Lectures


The flipped classroom model acknowledges and attempts to solve some of the inherent problems with this traditional teaching model.  First, it moves the input (lecture) part of the traditional model outside of the classroom using technological tools.  The idea is that students who don’t understand the lecture material the first time can watch the video lectures multiple times until they get it.  In addition, by moving lectures outside of class time, the model allows more time to be spent in class on elaboration (guided practice) and/or independent practice, where the teacher can be available to help students.

Are these good changes?  Will they result in better learning?  Well, let’s take the first big change–moving lectures from inside the classroom to outside the classroom.  In order to judge the efficacy of this move, we need to think about why lectures are so ineffective in the traditional model, as research has proven for decades.  The biggest problems with lectures are:


  • Long stretches of lecture overload working memory capacity, so very little of the material is retained—even when students DO pay attention (see #3);
  • Most teachers don’t do any pre-assessment of knowledge levels (entry points) of their students prior to the lecture.  Thus, some of the material is worthless to students who already know it, and some of the material is so far above where other students are that it is not going to be understood by these students.  In other words, the lectures aren’t differentiated, so only some students get maximum benefit from them; and
  • Finally, let’s face it, the vast majority of lectures are just plain BORING.  If students aren’t engaged, they won’t pay attention.  If they don’t pay attention, they never do the initial processing that will allow them to learn the material.


Now, let’s look to see if the flipped classroom way of delivering lectures addresses these three primary problems.  Problem #1–Overloading working memory: I have seen some online lectures that are only 5-7 minutes long, focusing on a single point/issue/problem type, and I’ve seen others that are as long as an hour (pretty much a regular, traditional lecture–just recorded).  When the videos are shorter, and especially if processing activities are done in between watching the short lectures, these online lectures can definitely avoid some of the problems of working memory overload.

Problem #2–No pre-assessment of student entry points/differentiation: While it would certainly be possible to address this problem in the flipped model (by pre-assessing students in class, then recording several different lectures designed for students with different entry points), I haven’t seen anyone doing this.

Problem #3–Boredom: Well, how engaging or boring a lecture is will be affected by a lot of factors, including the personality of the teacher, the teacher’s voice, visual aids, etc.  More than likely, a teacher who is a boring lecturer in person will probably be a boring lecturer online, and a teacher who is a dynamic, engaging lecturer in person will probably be a dynamic, engaging lecturer online.

Bottom line?  While it is possible to design lecture material for online consumption that addresses some of the problems of traditional lectures (by making them short and focused, by creating different lectures for different groups of students, etc.), more than likely, moving lectures from in class to online is not likely to solve any of the major problems that cause lectures to be poor input vehicles in the first place.

Plus, there’s another major issue that needs to be considered: clearing up confusion.  When a teacher lectures in class, he or she has the opportunity to “read” the group to identify confusion and frustration with the material (not that many teachers do this, unfortunately).  The lecturer can then stop, ask questions of the students or ask for the students’ questions, lead a clarifying discussion, etc.  None of this can be done with online lectures.  Sure, you can build in a feedback loop where students can ask their questions via e-mail, a class online forum, etc., but even if students take advantage of this (and many won’t due to lack of interest, embarrassment, etc.), the feedback is often delayed, and seeking further clarification is much more cumbersome than it would be face-to-face.

Proponents of the flipped classroom model also extol the virtue of students being able to watch the video multiple times if they don’t “get it” the first time.  There’s only one problem: if a student doesn’t get it the first time, he or she is unlikely to get it the second time, or the fifth, or the fifteenth.  This is because the major reason a student wouldn’t understand the video lecture the first time is that he or she doesn’t have the requisite background knowledge or vocabulary to understand the material.  No amount of repeat viewing will fill in the gap to allow comprehension.  This requires an actual human teacher assessing that knowledge gap and guiding the student to the necessary material to fill the gap.  The only students who will

benefit from multiple viewings of an online lecture are those who already have the requisite background knowledge, but did not understand the first time because they simply weren’t paying attention.  So, the multiple viewing argument in favor of the flipped model doesn’t hold up, either.


Elaboration and Practice


Now, let’s consider the other major difference between this model and the traditional model.  In the flipped classroom model, the time freed up by moving lectures outside of class can be applied to the other two components of any teaching model–elaboration (individual or group processing activities) and practice/application.  Is this change a positive one?  It can be,

sometimes, for some students.  Remember that students must comprehend the outside of class lecture material first and bring that understanding to class with them in order for them to take the next step and elaborate on or practice the material.  As I’ve already pointed out, some students will have been able to do this initial processing/comprehending via the online lectures, and

others probably will not have been able to do so.  So, while more time is provided for elaboration activities in class (definitely a good thing), the effectiveness of those activities will be hampered by the lack of readiness of some, perhaps many, students.

Proponents of the model also often state that time spent on “homework” in the traditional model can now be done in class, where the teacher can be a resource.  All I can say to this claim is that, if the teacher must be present to help students with the material at this stage, the wrong things were being done as homework in the first place.  Let me explain.

The traditional model often gets homework wrong, primarily when new reading material is assigned outside of class.  Any student who lacks the necessary prior knowledge (or reading skills) to comprehend the material is going to get very little out of it–if he or she even makes the attempt.  This is why so many students in traditional classrooms come to class unprepared to participate fully in elaboration activities.

There are truly only two types of activities that should be assigned to students for homework in ANY teaching model: (1) having students write about (or generate and record in some other way) their own thoughts and opinions about something introduced in class (because the student already knows his or her own thoughts and opinions and thus doesn’t need the help of a teacher), or (2) doing work that he or she can practice independently (skills/activities that have already been elaborated on and learned in class).  If flipped classroom teachers are having students do practice activities in class, and if the students truly need the teacher’s help during this process (they have not reached the level where they can work independently with the skill/material), they shouldn’t be practicing at all yet–they should be doing more elaboration (guided practice activities) until they reach independence.  And if teachers are having students using class time for independent practice, then why is the teacher even needed?




So, what conclusions should we draw from this examination of the flipped classroom model?  When comparing it to the old traditional teaching model (which seems to be what everyone wants to do), it might have a few advantages, but it certainly is no great improvement as a learning model.  Basically, it simply trades out some of the major weaknesses of the traditional model (boring, non-differentiated in-class lectures that are often not retained, lack of necessary in-class elaboration time, and inappropriate assignation of new input activities for homework) for another set of major weaknesses (inappropriate assignation of new input activities for homework in the form of watching non-differentiated lectures and wasted use of class time for independent practice when this could have been done outside of class).  The only true improvement of the flipped classroom model over the traditional instructional model is increased time for guided practice/elaboration activities in class.

But the biggest mistake people are making in this whole debate is doing what I have just done above–comparing the flipped classroom model to the traditional model.  Decades of research and practical classroom experience has demonstrated without a doubt that the traditional model stinks, so it’s not much of a victory to claim that a different way of teaching is better than

the traditional model.

What happens, though, when we compare the flipped model to a different model–one supported by cognitive science?  In this scenario, the flipped model doesn’t come off looking so good.What does cognitive science suggest would be a more effective teaching and learning model?  No matter what grade level or subject matter you teach, both cognitive science and educational research support a model that does basically four things:


  • Constantly pre-assess students on upcoming material to find out their background knowledge/skill level so you can differentiate instruction to match students’ entry points and needs;
  • Input new content in the classroom, where you can do on-going formative assessment of students’ initial processing of the new material.  Input can take many forms (lecturettes, reading, listening to an audio, watching a video, etc.), but you should strive to vary input to keep the classroom engaging, deliver new input in bite-sized chunks so that working memory is not overloaded, and deliver new content only to those who need it;
  • Spend as much time as possible in the classroom on elaboration of the new material. Again, there are many ways to do this, but it is important that you use elaboration activities that have a variety of “helps” built in (teacher-student conferences, cooperative learning activities, peer teaching, group projects, etc.) so that confusion is nipped in the bud before it can turn to frustration; and
  • Make sure that homework time is never used for input of new material (where lack of background knowledge and/or skills can lead to confusion) but is instead focused on either brainstorming or opinion work or given over to the repetition of already-learned material (to solidify the material in long-term memory) or practice of skills that have already reached independent level (to solidify the skills as habits).


Nothing above is earth-shaking or new.  I have written about such a brain-compatible teaching model many times, as have writers like Eric Jensen, Geoffrey and Renate Caine, Rich Allen, Pat Wolfe, Robert Sylwester, and many others.  But there are still many teachers who don’t practice this research-tested, classroom-proven, common sense way of teaching and instead grab for the

next shiny new teaching model that comes along.  But when we compare the newest such model, the flipped classroom model, to the brain-compatible model, we can clearly see that the flipped classroom model doesn’t measure up.  Yes, some of its inherent weaknesses can be tweaked by a skilled practitioner, but these tweaks will always be mere work-arounds.  In the end, compared to

a more brain-compatible model, the flipped classroom is destined to be a flop.



Willy Wood serves as President of Open Mind Technologies, Inc., an educational consulting firm.  In addition to doing workshops on the brain and effective teaching practices both nationally and internationally, he publishes a regular e-newsletter entitled Neuro News.  If you would like to be added to Willy’s mailing list to receive Neuro News, or to contact him about his presentations, e-mail him at willy.wood@yahoo.com.


Seven Steps to Magical Memory

by Willy Wood


Does this sound familiar?  You start a new unit of instruction with your students, and you do a brilliant job (mostly) of presenting the information, the students seem (mostly) engaged, and they seem to (mostly) “get it” while you are presenting.  Then, a couple of days later, you take a few minutes to review and check on their retention of the previous instruction, and you find that they remember almost nothing that you covered just a few days ago!  Of course it does.  Anyone who has ever taught has experienced this problem.


For those of us who remember our Ed. Psych. Classes from college, this occurrence should hardly come as a surprise.  After all, good old Hermann Ebbinghaus did the original research over a hundred years ago and demonstrated what John Medina, in Brain Rules: 12 Principles for Surviving and Thriving at Work, Home, and School calls “one of the most depressing facts in all of education: people usually forget 90 percent of what they learn in a class within 30 days….The majority of this forgetting occurs within the first few hours after class.”


But does it have to be this way, or are there steps we can take to make sure our students both get the information in their heads (encoding) and are more efficient at getting it back out to use it when they need it (retrieval)?  The good news is that yes, there are steps we can take—many of them, in fact.  In this article, I will cover seven of these steps any teacher can take to immediately increase the amount of information students retain.


Step One: Personalize the Information


Most teachers understand that the goal of teaching content knowledge is long-term memory.  After all, if they don’t retain the information months, even years later, what was the point of the instruction?  So, how do we get beyond the “cram-and-forget” cycle in which so many students engage?  The first step is to be aware that long-term memory starts with long-term memory.  That is, any time new information is presented, the first thing the brain wants to do is to check the information already stored in long-term memory (prior knowledge) to see if the information is already stored there.


If the information is not already in long-term memory, the brain often finds related information and tries to use this knowledge to infer the meaning of the new information.  This is metaphorical thinking at its most basic level.  It should be no surprise, then, that metaphorical/analogical thinking (identifying similarities and differences) has been identified by Robert Marzano in What Works in Schools: Translating Research into Action as one of the nine most effective teaching strategies.  It works because this is the way the brain works.  But it only works if the instruction is designed to allow students the time to engage in this natural thinking process.


It would thus seem to be merely common sense that teachers would, as a habit, identify what students already know and believe about upcoming content.  Unfortunately, in my classroom observations, I find that it is not so.  Most teachers simply teach the unit as laid out in the curriculum without ever checking with the students to see what they know about the topic at hand.  This leads to ineffective teaching and wasted effort.  So, the first step teachers need to take if they want to ensure long-term memory of new content in their students is to find out what their students already have in long-term memory about the topic.


The second part of this process involves building a “bridge” from students’ current understanding to the new information.  In the book Quantum Teaching: Orchestrating Student Success, DePorter et al. describe the “prime directive” of their teaching philosophy—Theirs to Ours, Ours to Theirs.  What this means is that we should enter the students’ world first by accessing their knowledge, interests, and motivations and then guide students to make connections between that prior knowledge (their world) and the new content we have to teach (our world).  Finally, after they have acquired the new information, we need to guide them as they apply their new understanding to new situations that are relevant to their lives (their world once again), which is the third part of the process.  This prime directive, then, is more than just a philosophy—it is an extremely efficient lesson and unit structure that facilitates the addition of new knowledge (memory) to previously existing knowledge.


Step Two: Use an Inductive Lesson Design Whenever Possible


In discussing the first step, above, I pointed out how important it is to identify what students already know in order to efficiently and effectively add to that knowledge.  But what if, upon assessing students’ current knowledge, we find that there are large gaps in that knowledge?  Obviously, it would do little good to plow ahead anyway.  Instead, we need to fill those gaps before we attempt to move forward.  Again, this is common sense, but just because it makes sense doesn’t mean that it’s an easy thing to do.  So, what’s the best way to go about it?


In my experience, if students have gaps in prior knowledge, those gaps usually stem from the lack of relevant life experiences.  The brain learns best when it makes its own meaning related to lived experience, and what we call prior knowledge is simply the semantic residue of those experiences—the way we explain those experiences to ourselves.  So, it makes sense that the most effective way to fill gaps in prior knowledge is to lead students through an experience exactly like or similar to the missing life experience in question.  I realize that it is not always possible or practical (time-wise) to create or simulate first-hand experience, but whenever possible, this is the most effective way for the brain to learn, and once that experience gap has been filled, the brain is now prepared to learn the new knowledge embodied in the next unit.


One more important note here—if a teacher decides that the best way to fill a particular gap in prior experience/knowledge is to use a combination of an experience (or a simulation of the experience) plus some explanation/direct instruction/debriefing of the experience, he or she would be wise to remember this phrase: experience before explanation.  Why is it so important that the experience come first (an inductive, rather than deductive approach)?  Because the experience creates a context in which the explanation (content) makes sense.  If the teacher puts the direct instruction first, students often give only partial attention to the instruction because it is not meaningful to them.  If the experience takes place first, however, not only are students engaged right off the bat, but they are often much more interested in the explanation (debriefing) of the experience that follows.


Step Three: Make the Initial Encoding as Elaborate as Possible


Research has consistently shown that the more elaborate the initial encoding of information is, the better it will be retained.  One way to make the initial encoding more elaborate is to involve as many senses as possible.  So, step three aligns nicely with step two: by starting with an experience that involves multiple senses, we not only build new life experience that we can use as a bridge to new learning, but we also more robustly encode that experience so that is likely to be retained in memory for the long term.


Another way to make initial encoding more elaborate is to have students reflect on the experience immediately.  By focusing on the personal meaning of the experience, students further solidify the connections between the experience and prior knowledge.  While simply having an engaging experience places the event in episodic memory, reflecting on the experience puts it into words and it becomes part of our story of how the world works, our mental maps.  The experience, and our description of the experience, thus become part of long-term memory.


Step Four: The “Four P” Approach


The first three steps I have outlined above have to do with the early stages of learning—assessing prior knowledge, filling gaps in experience with new experiences that provide a context for the new learning to come, and making sure that those experiences are robust and elaborate so that they remain in memory.  However, at some point we have to move into instruction of the new content and some amount of direct instruction is going to be necessary.  Steps four through six have to do with making our direct instruction time more effective.


We all know that long stretches of lecture are ineffective for long-term memory.  Research since the 1960’s has consistently proven that retention rates of lecture material are no better than 10%–and  that’s after only 24 hours!  And, of course, we hardly need the research to prove this point to us; we have all had the experience of listening to an hour-long lecture and being unable to recall a word of it the following day.  So, the question is, why do so many teachers still use long stretches of lecture as their primary mode of instructional delivery?  I have some guesses about the reasons behind this practice, but I won’t go into them here.  Instead, I would prefer to offer some solutions that are so easy to implement that even the most entrenched lecturer might be willing to give them a try.


First and foremost, we must break direct instruction up into shorter “chunks.”  Drawing on both research and practical experience, I have found that, when working with high school students, direct instruction is most effective when kept to no more than 10 to 12 minutes at a time (even with adults, I don’t like to go longer than 15 minutes at a stretch, as attention begins to dip).  The ability to effectively pay attention also appears to be developmental, and the younger the student, the shorter the stretches of direct instruction need to be.  From personal experience, I have found that 8-10 minutes is the limit for middle school students, 6-8 minutes for upper elementary, and no more than 6 minutes at a stretch for lower elementary.  These are simply rough guidelines, of course, and how long a person can pay attention at a stretch depends on many factors (the relationship between teacher and students, how energetic and expressive the presenter is, how interested the audience is, etc.).  The important point is that teachers need to look over the material they plan to present through lecture and break it up into chunks with no more than a few key ideas in each chunk.


Once the teacher has chunked the material, he or she needs to design the lesson in such a way that the students can make sense of it and make connections to prior knowledge.  To do so, I use a process I call the “Four P” approach.  This simple formula stands for Prime, Present, Pause, and Process.  The first step is to prime students for success.  This simply means that the teacher thinks about the chunk of material to be presented and asks him- or herself what kind of scaffolding would be helpful for the students to capture the main ideas in the chunk.  This may be as simple as saying something along the lines of, “In this next ten minutes, I’m going to go over the three key reasons that….Make sure that you get these three ideas down in your notes.”  As the teacher lectures, he or she then makes sure to point out these three points as he or she presents them.  This way, every student in the class should end up with the three key ideas in their notes.  Priming can be more elaborate, of course (for example, students could be given a graphic organizer to fill in as they listen), but the key point is to make sure that you give students an idea about what they should get out of that chunk of material before you present it.  It is amazing how much such a simple “heads up” to students prior to the delivery of the material can raise retention rates—and this is so easy to do, and makes so much common sense, that I am amazed that so few teachers do this as a matter of course.


The second “P” stands for “present.”  This is where the teacher presents his or her best knowledge about the current topic.  Of course, varying one’s voice, moving around, making eye contact, using visuals, etc., all help the presenter to be more engaging, and that all helps with attention and, therefore, later retention.  But the most important aspect of the “present” step is that the teacher keeps the amount of input manageable.  One or two main ideas (Medina believes it should always be just one) with supporting details and/or examples.  That’s it.  If the teacher tries to cram too much content into a “chunk,” he or she risks overloading working memory, and students will forget part of the material.


Now for the third “P.”  Obviously, if you break the instruction into chunks, you will have to pause between chunks.  So, what do you do with these pauses?  That’s where the fourth and final “P,” “process,” comes in.  Between each chunk of lecture, you need to provide students with the opportunity to think about the key point or points in the preceding chunk.  There are a hundred ways to do this, of course—think-pair-share, journal writing, small group discussion, any number of cooperative learning activities, etc.—but the important thing is to stop inputting new material in order to give students the opportunity to make meaning.  The opportunity to make meaning of each chunk will greatly increase retention.


Step Five: Standing “Lecturettes”


Most people, when they think about “memory,” either think about memory of “when and where”—some event from their lives, or they think about “what”—some information that they have stored in long-term memory.  These two types of memory (episodic and semantic) are not the only memory processes, of course, but if we understand them better and understand how they can interact with each other, we can be much more intentional about how we structure our lessons in order to maximize learning.


To better understand this interaction, it is important to understand that we never learn semantic content in a vacuum.  Let’s say you are learning about the Civil War in a social studies class.  Not only are you learning about generals and dates and presidents and battles (semantic content), but you are also taking in those details of your surroundings that you happen to notice—who you’re sitting next to, what that cute girl you like is wearing, what the weather is like outside (all episodic information).  The human brain learns semantic content slowly and with difficulty, while it seems to soak up episodic information like a sponge, effortlessly.  The point is that what we learn in any given moment is always a mixture of content and context.  This has been proven over and over again through research studies that show that when students are tested in the same environment in which they learned the information to be recalled (that is, the learning context and the testing context match), they score much better than when they are tested in a different environment than the original learning (this is called “context-dependent memory”).  Knowing this, we can employ a number of strategies to improve retention and recall.


For example, when discussing providing an experience or event to give context for the content in steps two and three, above, I was basically talking about using episodic memory in a calculated way.  By carefully embedding key content into a rich experience, we can increase retention of that content.  Whenever students remember the event (“Do you remember when we did…?”), they will also have another way to access the semantic content that was presented during the experience.  It’s like putting an extra “handle” on the information to increase the chances of retrieval.


Another simple way to use the power of episodic, or contextual, memory is by using standing “lecturettes.”  Let’s say you have chunked a lecture, following the advice above, into several short chunks.  Let’s say, further, that in one particular chunk there are three key pieces of information that you would like students to remember.  Of course, you are going to use priming to give students a heads up that there will be three key points made, and you may also provide some method for them to capture those three points.  However, in your mind, the three points, while all important, are not equal.  One of the three is especially crucial.


My suggestion is that you have students stand up during your presentation of that essential point.  Why do this?  Because, contextually, having students stand up sets that one point off (contextually) and makes it easier to remember because they are literally learning the information from a different “angle.”  If they learn everything while seated in the same seat every day, next to the same people, the contextual cues from one day’s learning environment run into the contextual cues from the previous day, and the day before that, and so on, and they lose some of their power.  But by changing the contextual cues surrounding one piece of information so that they are different than those tied to the other points, you allow students to store that material with a unique set of “handles” that can then be used to retrieve that information later.  To heighten the effect, you can have students stand and move to a different part of the room for this one point, then return to their seats.  Later, when they need to recall this point, it will be easy; just remind them to think back to what you covered while they were standing.   When they visualize the scene, the novel contextual clues will allow them to easily retrieve the semantic

content.  Since the whole chunk is not going to be longer than 10-12 minutes, students should only be on their feet for a couple of minutes.


Step Six: Moving Students with Intentionality


The process described in step five, above, can be employed on a larger scale to segment the learning in students’ minds so they can more easily store it and retrieve it.  This is done by manipulating the context around the content over the course of larger units of study.  Let’s say that a unit is expected to take three weeks to teach, and that within that three weeks, the material breaks down into four natural divisions.  A teacher bent on using episodic memory intentionally to set off semantic content into these four larger chunks might have students move with their groups to a different quadrant of the room for each of the four divisions of the material.  So, for the first division, a student may be sitting by the window; for the next chunk, he is sitting by the door, etc.  Each division of the semantic material is thus tied to different contextual information and, when it comes time to retrieve the information, that retrieval will come more easily, especially if students are coached in visualizing the context of the learning when attempting to retrieve it.


Of course, moving students intentionally can be done in other ways, as well.  Field trips, for example, are an extreme case.  Since the context provided by the field trip is completely different than the normal classroom context, any semantic content taught in this different environment should be much easier to recall later.  And the effect can be enhanced in other ways.  For example, the teacher can use handouts printed on a different color of paper for each of the large divisions of the unit.  Students can remember the content that was on the red handout as separate from the content that was on the green handout.


Step Seven: The Power of Spaced Learning


We have already discussed how important it is to present new information in small chunks followed by processing time.  In addition to this arrangement, we also need to make sure that we arrange our units so that we are revisiting and reviewing these chunks regularly.  This is important because distributed practice (learning in multiple short sessions) has proven to be far superior to massed practice (learning in one long session) for long-term memory.  Starting each day’s lesson with a quick review of the previous content and ending each day’s lesson with a summary of what has been covered (closure) is extremely helpful, as is reviewing at least once a week all of the major content presented during that week.


Stepping even a bit farther back and looking at the design of learning from a curricular perspective, we can do one more thing to greatly enhance our students’ long-term memory of the content we teach: we can present new material multiple times spread out across the school year, and even across multiple school years.  This practice of regularly “looping back” is crucial because long-term memory doesn’t form once and stay in that shape, immutable, for the rest of our lives.  Research on long-term memory indicates that for a period of at least a decade, even long-term memories are malleable, which means that information can become corrupted over time if we aren’t careful.  Frequent reviews help to consolidate the information accurately.




So there you have them—seven steps for increasing long-term memory in your students:


  1.  Personalize the information so that it is meaningful to the learner.
  2. Use an inductive teaching structure whenever possible—remember, experience before explanation.
  3. Make the initial encoding as elaborate as possible.
  4. Break direct instruction into short chunks, prime students for success, then pause and process (remember the four P’s).
  5. Utilize standing lecturettes to set more important information off from information of lesser importance.
  6. Move students with intentionality to tap into the power of contextual memory.
  7. Use spaced learning (distributed practice) and frequent reviews.


Of course, there are many more ways to improve storage and retention of content than I have presented here, but using these seven steps consistently will greatly enhance your students’ ability to learn.  It’s all about matching our curriculum and instructional practices to the way the brain learns best.



Willy Wood is the president of Open Mind Technologies, Inc., an educational consulting firm.  In addition to doing workshops on the brain and effective teaching practices both nationally and internationally, he publishes a regular e-newsletter entitled Neuro News.  If you would like to be added to Willy’s mailing list to receive Neuro News, or to contact him about his presentations, e-mail him at willy.wood@yahoo.com.


A Dollop of Dopamine: Using Feel-Good Music to Manage Students’ Moods

by Willy Wood

We have all had the experience of listening to a favorite song, and we all know the powerful positive effect it can have on us—how it can bring us out of a bad mood, or energize us to face a long day.  Just about everyone has a favorite song, a favorite CD, or a favorite recording artist that they turn to when they need an emotional lift.  We use music to “self-medicate” and to manage our moods all the time.  This type of music is what I call “feel good” music.

The question is, can we use this same kind of music to get a similar effect in our classrooms?  The answer is a definite “yes!”  In fact, judiciously using feel good music is one of the fastest ways to energize students, engage them, and create classroom community.

First of all, let’s talk about how it works.  And right off the bat, I will admit that there’s a lot we don’t understand completely.  For example, do the characteristics of the song play a major part in its effect?  With some types of music (for example, energizing music or calming music), the characteristics of the tune are crucial.  But it’s not so simple with feel good music.

As a generalization, most feel good songs tend to be upbeat and bouncy, but that’s hardly true across the board.  Some of the songs that put us in a good mood are slower and far from bouncy.  And genre doesn’t seem to matter, either.  Some people have feel good favorites that are hard rock—or country, or classical, or jazz, or rap, or…well, you get the point.

Another question is, does it matter if it’s instrumental or has lyrics?  Again, not really.  We all have some favorite feel good tunes that are instrumental.  I would hazard a guess, though, that for most people, the majority of their favorite feel good tunes have lyrics.  And this brings up another reason why a particular song might be a favorite—the lyrics say something of importance to listeners, something they identify with.

Yet another reason that a particular song becomes a favorite is that we all create associations between different parts of our experience, including songs.  A common example is when a couple identifies a particular song as “their” song.  Why is it their song?  Probably because it was the song that was playing when they first kissed, or had their first dance together, etc.  So it’s not just the song itself that makes us feel good, but also the positive associations that are connected with that song in our memories.

What all of this adds up to is that, when we hear a favorite song, we get a rush of dopamine in the pleasure/reward centers of our brains.  Having a favorite song come on the radio is like taking a giant bite of chocolate, or parking all day without feeding the meter and not getting ticketed, or…or anything else that makes us feel good!  It’s an instant shot of pleasure.

So, let’s get back to classroom application.  How can you harness and employ the power of feel good music?  Well, obviously, you’re not going to play this kind of music while you are doing direct instruction or while students are working on an academic task of any sort.  While having such music on might make students feel good about being there, it also would seriously distract them from learning.  So the best times to use feel good music are the transitions—when students are coming into class, getting materials out or putting them up, transitioning between tasks, and as they are leaving the room.

Just imagine the following two scenarios.  In Scenario 1, no music is playing as students come into class.  What are they thinking about?  Whatever was running through their heads out in the hallway on the way to class.  Maybe someone called them a name, or they passed their reflection in a mirror and saw that their hair isn’t looking so hot today, or they’re wondering what’s for lunch.  Who knows?  Whatever it is, their minds are generally distracted and not focused on coming to your class and learning.  Unless you do something, students are allowed to continue to revolve these thoughts around in their heads, and it takes much longer to get them focused on task.

In Scenario 2, as students approach the door to your room, they have the same thoughts revolving in their heads as in scenario 1, but in this case, something is different.  As they walk through the door, they are greeted by a song that they enjoy.  Immediately their thoughts go to the song and the pleasurable associations they have with it.  They start bopping along as they head to their seats in the midst of a dopamine rush.  The bell rings and you let the song play for a few more seconds as you take roll.  Then you suddenly cut the music off and call the class to attention.  There are some grumbles and pleas to hear the rest of the song, but you gently switch their focus to the day’s lesson.  Because the song switched their focus from outside of the room concerns to inside the room, they are much easier to refocus than the group in Scenario 1, and because of the extra dopamine in their systems, they are now in a much better mood to tackle the subject matter of the day’s lesson.  It truly is a magical thing—and all you had to do was put a song on just before they came in!

But let’s step back for a minute and talk about the challenges of using feel good music in the classroom.  Certainly, feel good music can be perhaps the “trickiest” use of music, if you aren’t careful.  In my experience, it’s almost impossible to find even a single song that everyone likes, much less a number of them to use for variety.  We all have our favorite genres of music and our favorite artists.

And then there are those associations I mentioned earlier.  A song that the majority of people love might make another student break into tears because that was the song playing when her boyfriend broke up with her.  There’s no way to predict such reactions.  The best you can hope for is to find a number of songs that most of your students like and keep them rotating.

If you work with older students and you implement the use of feel good music for transition times, you might institute some type of “nomination” system, where students get to bring in favorite songs for you to play for this purpose.  The advantage of having students pick the music is that they get a huge kick out of hearing their favorite song, the one they nominated, played in class.  Believe me, you will instantly become that student’s favorite teacher (at least until you give him homework again).  But be careful—if you work with older students, especially, you might need to set up some kind of screening procedure to check the songs for appropriateness.  When I taught high school, students could nominate songs and turn them in to me.  I would listen to them at home and, if they were OK to use, I would play them.  If not, I would return the song to the student and we would have a little talk about appropriateness.

My advice would be to get together a playlist of songs that you think have nearly-universal appeal as your starting place.  I have found that a lot of 1960’s music still works well today, as the kids have heard all of these songs on TV commercials.  Or you might start by gathering together some “greatest hits” collections.  The reasons these songs were hits was because a large percentage of people liked them.

Once you have your starter list, begin using them as described above for transitions and observe the kids.  That’s the key to becoming good at using feel good music in the classroom—kid-watching.  You will be able to tell if they like a song or not by how they react.  If most of the kids don’t like a song, cross it off your list and don’t use it again.  If most of them like it, keep it in your list.  Keep experimenting over time and tweaking your list.  Soon you will have a collection of songs that work like a charm.

For more detailed information about using feel good music in the classroom—and much more—see The Rock ‘N’ Roll Classroom: Using Music to Manage Mood, Energy, and Learning, by Rich Allen and Willy Wood (Corwin Press, 2012).

Happy listening!



Willy Wood is the co-author, with Rich Allen, of The Rock ‘N’ Roll Classroom: Using Music to Manage Mood, Energy, and Learning (Corwin, 2012).  Willy also serves as President of Open Mind Technologies, Inc., an educational consulting firm.  In addition to doing workshops on the brain and effective teaching practices both nationally and internationally, he publishes a regular e-newsletter entitled Neuro News.  If you would like to be added to Willy’s mailing list to receive Neuro News, or to contact him about his presentations, e-mail him at willy.wood@yahoo.com.