Bringing the Neuroscience of

Learning to Online Teaching

An Educator’s Handbook

Tracey Tokuhama-Espinosa
Foreword by Michael Fullan
Published by Teachers College Press,® 1234 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10027

Copyright © 2021 by Tracey Tokuhama-Espinosa

Front cover node network by enjoynz / polygon brain by Jolygon, both from iStock by Getty Images.
Figure designs by Tracey Tokuhama-Espinosa and created under contract by Nick Volosevich.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form
or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, or any information storage
and retrieval system, without permission from the publisher. For reprint permission and other
subsidiary rights requests, please contact Teachers College Press, Rights Dept.: tcpressrights@tc​
.columbia​.edu

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Tokuhama-Espinosa, Tracey,1963– author.
Title: Bringing the neuroscience of learning to online teaching : an
educator’s handbook / Tracey Tokuhama-Espinosa.
Description: New York, NY : Teachers College Press, [2021] | Includes
bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2021007223 (print) | LCCN 2021007224 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780807765524 (paperback) | ISBN 9780807765531 (hardcover) |
ISBN 9780807779651 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Web-based instruction—Psychological aspects. |
Learning—Physiological aspects. | Neurosciences.
Classification: LCC LB1044.87 .T65 2021 (print) | LCC LB1044.87 (ebook) |
DDC 371.33/44678—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021007223
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021007224

ISBN 978-0-8077-6552-4 (paper)

ISBN 978-0-8077-6553-1 (hardcover)
ISBN 978-0-8077-7965-1 (ebook)

Printed on acid-free paper

Manufactured in the United States of America
 Contents

Foreword  Michael Fullan vi

Acknowledgments vii

Preface viii
Who Should Read This Book? ix
How to Use This Book x

Introduction xii
The Move xii
Technology and Mind, Brain, and Education Science xvii

1. Teaching Online Using Mind, Brain, and Education Science 1

Teachers’ New Professional Development 1
Online Design Using Mind, Brain, and Education Teaching 4
Conditions for Great Learning 6

2. Connecting Teaching and Learning Goals to Neuroscience:

40 Evidence-informed Pedagogies 9
Goal: Mastery Learning 9
Pedagogy: Universal Design For Learning 9
Pedagogy: Bundles to Differentiate Entry Points to the Material 10
Pedagogy: Differentiated Homework 11
Pedagogy: E-­portfolios 12
Pedagogy: Rubrics with Product, Pro­cess, and Pro­gress Mea­sures 12
Pedagogy: Frequent, Formative Evaluation 15
Pedagogy: Feedforward 15
Goal: Deeper Learning 16
Pedagogy: Flipping the Classroom 16
Pedagogy: Reflection 17
Pedagogy: Leverage Culture 18
Pedagogy: Hold High Expectations 18

iii
iv Contents

Pedagogy: Use Heuristics, Expose Bias 20

Pedagogy: Interleaving 20
Pedagogy: Help Students Find Success E­ very Day 23
Pedagogy: Questioning 23
Pedagogy: Socratic Method 24
Goal: Metacognitive Awareness 24
Pedagogy: Metacognitive Awareness Inventory 25
Pedagogy: Executive Function Training 25
Goal: Growth Mindsets 26
Pedagogy: Love What You Do or Learn From It 26
Pedagogy: Teach Lifelong Learning 27
Pedagogy: Teach Risk and Protective F­ actors in Brain Health 28
Pedagogy: Educate the Whole Child 28
Goal: Dare to Err 29
Pedagogy: “Do-­Overs,” Second Chances, and Rewrites 29
Pedagogy: Frequent, Low-­Stakes Testing 29
Goal: Optimal Performance 30
Pedagogy: Know Thyself 31
Pedagogy: Flexibility Based on (Current) Needs 31
Goal: Relevant Curriculum 32
Pedagogy: Neuroconstructivist Curriculum 32
Pedagogy: Transdisciplinary Thinking 33
Goal: Differentiation and Student Autonomy 33
Pedagogy: Student-­Driven Curriculum 33
Pedagogy: Au­then­tic Learning Activities 34
Goal: Social Contagion 34
Pedagogy: Small-Group Work 34
Pedagogy: Explic­itly Teach Empathy, Emotions and Facial Cues 35
Pedagogy: Explic­itly Teach Emotional Cues from Voices 36
Goal: Strong Learning Communities 36
Pedagogy: Leverage Theory of Mind 36
Pedagogy: Collaborate as Learners 37
Pedagogy: Collaborative Teaching 37
Pedagogy: Leverage Small Breakout Room Sharing 38
Pedagogy: Cold Call by Name in Video Conferencing 38
 Contents v

Goal: Personalization 38
Pedagogy: Show You Care 39
Pedagogy: Listen 39
Goal: Clear Communication 39
Pedagogy: Clarification Immediacy 39
Pedagogy: Be Predictable 41

3. Choosing Tools 42
Worked Examples 42
Understanding by Design 43
Activities and Resources 46
The Buffet of Digital Technology: Choose Wisely 55

4. Rethinking Time and Space 61

Time for School: The Academic Calendar 61
Synchronous and Asynchronous Learning 62
Time for Communication 69
Time for Assessment and Evaluation 73

5. Designing Learning and Instruction 75

State, National, and International Guidelines 75
A 12-Step Process 76
Pros and Cons of This Instructional Design 84

6. The Celebration: Enjoy Our New Online Home 85

There’s Never Been a Better Time to Be an Educator 86

Appendix A. Rubric: How to Identify Quality Digital Educational Resources 88

Appendix B: Appears online at www.tcpress.com

References 90

Index 105

About the Author 110

 Foreword
Surprisingly and essentially, this book Is primarily
about prac­ti­tion­ers and related learners at all levels. If
­there was ever a perfect and timely match to help us
navigate the immediacy of confusion and opportunity
about learning, it consists of putting the neuroscience
of learning and online teaching in the hands and mind
of Tracey Tokuhama-­Espinosa. Rarely has online learn-
ing gone so deep. This handbook starts and never stops
pursuing the core of professional learning through
combining the mind, the brain, and the teaching to de-
sign online learning experiences. The coverage is at
once comprehensive, clear, compelling, and rare in
combining depth and practicality. It is concise, enabling
deep learning to come alive through the gateways to
learning that Tokuhama-­Espinosa so adeptly opens and
guides the reader into, but ultimately and appropri-
ately expects the reader to probe and extend.
Part of the perfect match are the new demands and
opportunities provided by COVID-19. ­There was already
an explosion of knowledge, seemingly without limit or
bound­ aries, presented since the turn of the c­entury.
With limitless learning came confusion about where to
start, and how to pursue complexity. With the pandemic
came panic—­not just the threat to lives, but also about
where learning should go. Many p ­ eople are falsely seek-
ing a make-up solution ­ under the rubric of “loss of
learning”; ­others intuitively sense an opportunity to re-
vamp learning but have no idea how to go about it.
Tracey Tokuhama-­ Espinosa was already on the
frontier of new knowledge and how to cultivate it—­
already in the vanguard of deep learning through on-­
line courses. The history of innovation is replete with
stories of how disconnected ideas ­were combined to
produce new insights and opportunities. Combining
the neuroscience of learning with technology is a case
of two dif­fer­ent frontiers of knowledge arriving in­de­
pen­dently and si­mul­ta­neously on the scene at more or
less the same time. Tracey already was working in
­these domains and as such was in a unique position to
pounce on their integrated potential.
Thus, we have this book, which is si­mul­ta­neously
concise, deep, and comprehensive in rapidly orienting
the reader to a new and exciting frontier. At the front
vi
end, the author positions the “online design” for using
the mind, the brain, and teaching. We get as a founda-
tion new “conditions for g­ reat learning.” Then quickly
we review 40 evidence-­informed pedagogies grouped
­under inspiring summaries related to such themes as
“mastery learning,” “deeper learning,” “dare to err,”
“student autonomy,” “social contagion,” and o ­ thers, in
relation to technology and neuroscience.
The strength of the book is that we are not left on
our own. Impressively the reader is then provided
with practical tools, structures, and other integrative
methods for maximizing quality learning. The book
clearly helps us reimagine the use of technology, re-
think time and space, design learning, address assess-
ment, and much more. Within the book and its two
resource-­based appendices we readers ­will find a ru-
bric for how to identify quality digital resources and,
crucially, given the urgent dilemma we currently face,
guidance about differences between emergency re-
mote learning and high-­quality online courses. ­Every
question goes deep: What do we keep? What do we
toss? What do we acquire? What do we replace?
I am not saying that this book delivers all the an-
swers, but it does raise all the right issues, offers con-
crete guidance and tools, points us in the right
direction, and helps us down new and exciting path-
ways that are cleared away. Reader, do your part and
you ­will be rewarded on many fronts.
At the opening of the book, the author makes the
point that ­every prob­lem is an opportunity: “big prob­
lems, big opportunities.” To say that a sharp focus link-
ing the neuroscience of learning and online teaching is
timely might be the understatement of the de­cade.
Read this book, above all, use and develop the ideas,
and you w ­ ill find how quickly Tracey Tokuhama-­
Espinosa jumped on and got ahead of the curve. In
many ways the under­lying theme of this book is up-
lifting and optimistic b­ ecause it helps us consider our
new opportunities and optimism for developing and
celebrating the ­future of learning.
—­Michael Fullan
professor emeritus
OISE, University of Toronto
 Acknowledgments
­ reat teachers are learners. Many heroic educators re-
G The amazing possibilities of online learning are
sponded positively to the challenges presented by
COVID-19. When teachers w ­ ere thrust into uncer-
tainty, many responded using deeply ingrained values
and optimism. They ­were resilient, showed a growth
mindset, and responded to each prob­lem innovatively
and creatively. Many leveraged a servant leadership
mentality to grow together, rather than shelter-­in-­place
alone. They collaborated. They shared. They empathized
with one another, their students and families, and ­were
by all accounts, exemplary. Many of my personal heroes
during this time w­ ere from the Kamehameha Schools
in Hawaii. In their own way, each and ­every teacher
there contributed to the inspiration for this book.
­ cease to amaze me, especially during challenging times.
Special gratitude is due to JoAnn Wong-­Kam, Sylvie
Fields, and Miki Maeshiro, whose endless enthusiasm
and love for learning is a constant inspiration.
vii
nowhere more vis­i­ble than at the Harvard University
Extension School. My teaching fellows—­Julia Volkman,
Cynthia Borja, Danielle Batchelor, Jovi Nazareno, Drew
Nelson, Erin Clark, Thomas Gorham, and Curtis Kelly—­
the technical support team, including Michael Kilmurray
and Adrienne Phelps-­Coco, and the administration,
including Mary Higgins and Mark Lax, have been
awesome at e­ very turn, making this ongoing adven-
ture a plea­sure. Thank you.
You learn a g­ reat deal about p
­ eople in times of cri-
sis. This book is also dedicated to my husband and
wonderful ­children, parents, and ­sisters, who never
Fi­
nally, thanks to Jean Ward and Lori Tate at
Teachers College Press for picking up on the impor-
tance of this idea in this moment in history.
 Preface
­Every prob­lem is an opportunity. Big prob­lems, big
opportunities.
Starting in March 2020, the state of education
around the world was thrown into chaos as schools
shut down abruptly due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Many brave, creative, and resilient teachers did their
best to pull together lessons any way they could, often
relying on instant messaging or phone calls to stay in
touch with their students, and even dropping off pho-
tocopied materials to their learners’ front doors. This
“emergency remote teaching” (Hodges et al., 2020)
was heroic and necessary, but long-­term solutions re-
quired another mindset and a dif­fer­ent planning struc-
ture. As the summer came, some institutions began
regrouping and rethinking their approach to tradi-
tional classroom learning. And when fall arrived and it
was clear that ­going back to the classrooms of old was
not likely to happen, hundreds of thousands of cre-
ative teachers began their move online with a longer-­
term vision. Stories shared by Ferdig and colleagues
(2020) documented some of the more agile responses
and findings that celebrated how teachers approached
collaboration and technology choices, and how they
bridged from before-­and after-­pandemic thinking. By
late summer, t­here ­were hundreds of new websites
run by teachers who began to share lessons learned
and to help one another. Many of t­hese teachers saw
the benefits of online learning that would last well be-
yond the pandemic. This book was born out of work
with some of ­those ­great teachers.
In parallel and far more quietly, an explosion of
new information from the learning sciences occurred
(see Figure P.1), including a broader ac­cep­tance of
international guidelines for all teachers about brain
basics and the role of neuroscience in education
(Tokuhama-­ Espinosa et al., 2020). Ever since the
OECD’s recommendation that teachers receive more
neuroscience and technology training in their initial
teacher education (Guerriero, 2017), and the bold
stance by the Deans for Impact (2015) to shift teacher
education to include more classes about the learning
viii
science in their university consortia members’ curri-
cula, the brain and how it learns best has become a
key topic in educators’ development.
Teachers’ professional development changed over
the summer of 2020. At the crossroads of traditional
best practices, technology, and the learning sciences
was a new professional profile (Tokuhama-­Espinosa
et al., 2020). As an instructor at the Harvard University
Extension School in a course called the Neuroscience of
Learning: An Introduction to Mind, Brain, Health and
Education, which I have taught since 2014 and since
2016, 100% online, and as a friend and con­sul­tant to
thousands of teachers in over 40 dif­fer­ent countries
around the world, I was able to appreciate first-­hand
from both a university and a K–12 viewpoint the
strug­gles, attitude shifts, and insights of teachers and
their students as we pivoted to a new understanding of
education. As the author of two recent publications for
UNESCO, one on technology (Tokuhama-­ Espinosa
et al., 2019a) and the other on the brain (Tokuhama-­
Espinosa, 2019a), experiencing the rebirth of educa-
tion combining t­hese visions with excellent pedagogy
has been enlightening and invigorating. My most re-
cent books, Neuromyths: Debunking False Ideas About the
Brain (Tokuhama-­Espinosa, 2019c) and Five Pillars of
the Mind: Redesigning Education to Suit the Brain
(Tokuhama-­Espinosa, 2019d), have also contributed
to the debates and insights about neuroconstructivism
and how to use evidence-­based ideas from the neuro-
science of learning, especially Mind, Brain, and
Education science, to inform educational design.
All educators, instructional designers, cognitive
neuroscientists, psychologists, and educational admin-
istrators are learning scientists, even if they are not
familiar with the term. It is hoped that “the learning
sciences catalyze a change in educational policy priori-
ties” (Tokuhama-­ Espinosa, 2019b, p. 14), ranging
from the ways we decide what is impor­tant to learn to
how we teach and evaluate. One of the goals of this
book is to help educators think like learning scientists
as they move online.
 Preface ix

Figure P.1. The Learning Sciences

Data Machine Computer Information
Science Learning Learning Technology

Behavioral Cognitive
Neuroscience Technology
Neuroscience Neuroscience
Cultural
Neuroscience
Neuropsychology
Cognitive Design
Science Studies
Cognitive Educational
Psychology Neuroscience
LEARNING
Psychology Linguistics
SCIENCES
Social Neuro-
Psychology Education
Mind, Brain,
Anthropology
and Education
Educational Instructional
Psychology Design

Sociology Education Culture

Learning
Pedagogy Curriculum Environments

© Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2021

Source: Based on Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2019b, p. 5

WHO SHOULD READ THIS BOOK?
This book is for teachers from kindergarten through
university and beyond. There are some fundamental
aspects to teaching online that are shared by all teachers
who are on this journey. Early childhood teachers, just
like university professors and adult trainers, need to
understand how to identify, choose and compile digital
resources, think through the best differentiated evalua-
tion methods, select the right communication options,
and know which pedagogical approaches are supported
by the learning sciences. Rather than prescribe age-
specific lesson plans, this book grounds educators in
decision-making steps about these important choices. To
help readers visualize options, the book shares dozens
of successful examples of how teachers went about ap-
plying this information in real life during the pandemic,
so others can be inspired by their experiences but not
feel confined to a single model. Rather than a self-
driving car, this book should be thought of as a map.
Readers seeking specific grade-level suggestions
are encouraged to use the Internet and insert the key
words “online teaching ready lesson plans” where
they will be treated to more than 260 million options,
such as Share My Lesson (https://sharemylesson.com/),
Lesson Plans (https://www.education.com), and
TeachersPayTeachers (https://www.teacherspayteachers
.com). University professors and others using learning
management systems (LMS) such as Canvas or Moodle
can use their community site to find recommended
lessons, and most tech support departments curate re-
positories for their staff. Additionally, all teachers at all
grade levels can explore ready-made lessons created by
all of the major publishers and by professional organ-
izations, such as those related to STEAM and STEM
course (e.g., https://www.stemfinity.com, https://www
.futurelearn.com). Homeschooling websites are also a
goldmine of ideas for lesson plans K–12. And finally,
nearly all states in the United States have created sup-
port sites with free lesson plans for their public school
x Preface
teachers, such as California’s F
­ ree Educational Resources
for Distance Learning (https://­www​.­cde​.­ca​.­gov​/­ci​/­cr​/­cf​
/­distancelearnresources​.­asp). We ­will talk more about
how to select the best of t­ hese options in Chapter 3.
HOW TO USE THIS BOOK
This is a book meant to be read quickly and kept handy
as you ­either teach your first online course or improve
an existing one. It can be used to teach 100% online
classes, blended or hybrid courses, and 100% face-­to-­
face courses that use online support. Each chapter
serves a specific purpose, so some readers might find it
helpful to jump around to dif­fer­ent parts depending
on their interests and needs.
If you want a better understanding about which prac-
tices of teaching online are supported by evidence from the
learning sciences, start with Chapters 1 and 2.
If you are designing instruction, you are invited to
first read the introduction and Chapter 3 to better un-
derstand the complexities involved in teaching. ­These
­earlier sections detail the steps to craft instruction that
meets the needs of all students.
If you are looking for a clearer explanation of the tech-
nology and range of tools you can incorporate into your on-
line class, you may want to jump to Chapter 4.
If you are new to online teaching and are looking for
a step-­by-­step guide of how to approach the task of con-
structing a g­reat class quickly, you can start with
Chapter 5, but should then circle back to the first
chapters to be sure you understand the “why”
­behind the recommendations.
And every­one should read the introduction and
Chapter 6. T ­ here are amazing, new possibilities for
teaching and learning in online formats. Some of t­ hese
opportunities are due to the virtual modality. ­Others
leverage digital tools to help learners outside of the
classroom and differentiate homework to deepen un-
derstanding. Yet ­others are reminders of the art of our
craft, which rests in the h ­ uman interaction between
members of a learning community. In t­hese chapters,
we celebrate the new understanding that online class-
room management can be personal and intimate, es-
pecially in contrast to “socially distanced and masked”
live classroom alternatives. All of t­hese discoveries
show us that we are living in unpre­ce­dented times and
have a unique opportunity in this watershed moment
in education to make foundational changes in the
ways we teach and evaluate learning to help all stu-
dents reach their potential.
The introduction uses the analogy of moving to a
new home to help readers think about the many
decisions and actions required to get from traditional
classrooms to successful online learning.
Chapter 1 w ­ ill examine how knowledge of the
teaching–­learning dynamic is changed by research from
the learning sciences, and what this means in online
contexts.
Chapter 2 ­will look at 40 proven interventions in on-
line contexts that apply to all teachers, in­de­pen­dent of
their grade levels. This chapter ­will show how apply-
ing findings from the neuroscience of learning can be
leveraged to create equal, if not better, learning expe-
riences than ever before.
Chapter 3 backward engineers the design of good
online environments. ­Great teachers know that starting
with the end in mind at ­every stage of planning is per-
haps the best way to liberate time and focus on learner
needs both online and in traditional settings. This
chapter also examines the wide array of teaching and
evaluation choices we have and shares a new taxonomy
of digital educational resources to sort through the thou-
sands of options now available.
Chapter 4 takes a look at the new ways that time is
perceived in online learning. We begin with the chang-
ing school calendar as many embrace the logic of a
long-­term view of mastery and lifelong learning. This
chapter also rethinks the h ­ uman learning cycle by di-
viding up work into synchronous and asynchronous
activities, and suggests that online learning gives more
priority to time for evaluation and feedback than ever
before, something that is likely to change the face of
education forever.
Chapter 5 brings together the steps in planning,
new technologies, and how the learning sciences in-
fluence our choice of instructional design. This chapter
begins by looking at the common aspects of vari­ous
standards for online learning and uses ­these guidelines
to suggest 12 steps for the construction of a ­great on-
line class.
Chapter 6 celebrates all of the ways that teaching
online is equal to, and sometimes better than, traditional
face-­to-­face classes. This chapter acknowledges that
education has changed forever due to the world pan-
demic, but that for all of the prob­lems this has caused,
­there is a silver lining in the many new ways we are
learning to reach ­every student.
Redesigning schooling online has catalyzed a re-
view of ­every existing educational practice and policy
­imagined. This has meant rethinking what we mean
by “good” teaching, the “right” way to evaluate, and
even the very role that education plays in society.
It has made us educators reflect on standardized test-
ing, the role of technology in ­human development,
and relationships with students and their caregivers.
 Preface xi
Thankfully, most of this questioning has led to better,
more efficient, and more personalized solutions about
how to reach ­ every learner and maximize their
potential.
This reexamination has not been all positive, how-
ever. The move online has revealed many inequities in
society, most especially in public schools. Some cities
responded proactively by giving all kids tablets so they
could work from home (Williams, 2020). O ­ thers in-
vested in better Internet (O’Byrne & Texier, 2020), fa-
cilitated community child care for working parents
(NYC C ­ hildren, 2020), and almost all gave training to
teachers (Johnson, 2020). However, many kids in
poorer communities are still expected to lose up to a
full year of schooling (Dorn et al., 2020), broadening
the already unacceptable gap between the privileged
and the poor. It is now clear that educators, some of
the most essential workers in society, are d ­ oing their
best to keep the relationships between school, good
nutrition, ­mental and physical health, and learning on
the front pages and in policymakers’ minds (Engzell
et al., 2020). With a l­ittle luck and a lot of hard work,
­great educators may be able to say the pandemic cata-
lyzed a re­nais­sance of public school education.
The move online has caused a ­great deal of disso-
nance, and ­every actor in society has been affected.
Parents’ lives have been disrupted, students’ expecta-
tions of school have changed, and many teachers have
been pushed to learn new skills. But a lot of good has
come from this shift. For one, this move has triggered
an impor­tant change in the relationship between teach-
ers and students. Many teachers have increased empa-
thy for learners and their pro­cesses. Being thrust back
into the role of a student has spurred many teachers to
forge stronger bonds with their learners as they, too, live
through the same cycle of frustrations, breakthroughs,
and cele­ brations with e­very newly acquired online
competency. This appreciation for what students go
through ­every day is just one of the discoveries that has
come to light as we move online. Let’s look at ­others.
 Introduction
We know that the best way to help a person learn
something new is to relate it to something already
known (Barto et al., 1981). ­Great teachers understand
that if a student knows how to add, then they can teach
subtraction referencing addition, for example. All new
learning passes through the filter of prior experience,
according to a 2020 international study among Mind,
Brain, and Education experts (Tokuhama-­ Espinosa
et al., 2020), which is why stimulating prior knowl-
edge is one of the key triggers in new learning.
Fewer teachers know, however, that when you
have to learn something that is completely unrelated
to anything you already know, your brain still craves a
reference point, without which it can find itself in an
infinite search loop. The brain naturally tries to find
something it can latch onto for reference as it navi-
gates new learning (Shing & Brod, 2016). This is why
a kid with gaps in knowledge about addition ­will grasp
at irrelevant ideas, and even guess about how to fill in
­those missing foundations before he can actually learn
subtraction. The brain neuroconstructively scaffolds
information (Sirois et al., 2008). This means it builds
up foundational networks before trying to learn more
difficult ideas, which is why students who have no ref-
erence points on which to hang a new idea ­will resort
to imagining how to relate and connect concepts. This
conjecture sometimes leads to ­great insights, and other
times to tragic misconceptions.
Teachers can help students navigate new learning
through the use of analogy. The learning sciences sug-
gest that when we ­can’t rely on prior knowledge to lay a
clear path ­toward a learning objective, analogies are the
next best option (Kauchak & Eggan, 1998). One recent
challenge for which we had no clear reference point was
how to reopen schools closed by a pandemic.
THE MOVE
Moving is a ­great analogy for our current situation.
We are moving from brick-­and-­mortar classrooms to
an online modality. Like any move, this can be stress-
ful, or it can be an amazing adventure.
xii
I’m married to a diplomat, which means ­we’ve
spent a lot of time moving. We’ve lived in Japan,
Switzerland, Peru, and then back in the United States
for a ­little while before ­going to Ec­ua­dor and then to
the United States again. So, moving is something with
which I’m pretty familiar.
Moving means you have to decide what’s r­eally
impor­tant. This involves assigning values to dif­fer­ent
parts of your life, which is never easy. It also means
that ­things you might have taken for granted before
the move have to be evaluated for their worth in the
new context. (Do I bring Grandma’s gravy bowl, which I
have never used, across country and risk breaking it, or do I
leave it in storage? Do I give away the kids’ baby clothes or do
they come with us? Does the dining t­ able I love even fit in the
new place?). Both scaling up to a bigger place and scal-
ing down to a smaller unit create challenges. And even
­after you decide what’s impor­tant and think you have
it all sorted out, you then need to negotiate this with
the ­people who w ­ ill live with you. In short, you have
to return to your roots and prioritize what is ­really
impor­tant.
What do I keep?
What do I toss out?
What do I give away?
What do I store?
What do I replace?
What new things do I need to acquire?
Moving is not all bad, though; it can actually be an
exciting time and an opportunity to prioritize and re-
turn to your roots. It’s the chance to dust off old but
impor­tant ­things of value, to take stock of every­thing
in context and compare options, and to decide what
­really ­matters.
Moving Online
As educators, we are moving online, or to what some
call remote, distance, or virtual education. And we
have to make many of the same choices as in a physi-
cal move.
 Introduction xiii
What do we keep?
What do we toss out?
What do we give away?
What do we store?
What do we replace?
What do we need to acquire?
When speaking recently with a friend and col-
league about the opportunities created by our current
situation, he said no amount of professional develop-
ment money could have thrust such a change on us,
and I agree. What’s more, no amount of lobbying
could have slammed the inadequacies of one-­size-­fits-­
all testing; or called attention to the imbalances of ac-
cess to good teachers and neighborhoods with the
Internet; or the importance of social–­emotional learn-
ing and the construction of resilience.
Furthermore, no amount of advertising could have
brought attention to the myriad of opportunities cre-
ated by the pandemic. ­There are literally hundreds of
thousands of options available, often for f­ree, that
teachers are just beginning to explore. Necessity is the
­mother of invention. Many teachers who never con-
sidered educational technology beyond Power­Point be-
fore the pandemic began enrolling in thousands of ­free
webinars to learn about every­ thing from foreign-­
language support to mathematical concepts reinforce-
ment, and from physical education to growth mindsets.
It was as if someone who barely knew how to swim
was being tossed into churning ­waters and told to make
it to shore. This w ­ asn’t fair, many protested. Most
teachers resisted at first: Online was not the way learn-
ing is supposed to work, and e­ very instinct in our bod-
ies told us to just keep our heads above w ­ ater. Find a
way to make it to shore, anyway. This panicked reac-
tion was dangerous but understandable. We know that
the brain makes quick and desperate decisions when it
experiences anger, fear, or anxiety (Dorn et al., 2020).
Fear is the emotion with some of the shortest pro­
cessing routes in the brain, mainly b ­ ecause it serves a
survival function. A ­ fter all, it is better to react now—­
even if in error—­than to miss the opportunity to stay
alive. It takes more complex neural networks to over-
ride fear. Empathy, for example, is a complex bundle of
pathways related to biographical memory, emotional
maturity, and perspective taking (Ding et al., 2020).
This means that decision-­making triggered by fear is
likely to override choices made through more complex
thinking, such as empathy and perspective taking,
­unless we know better. In which case, we can be better
than the natu­ral inclination of our brain.
The brain’s way of pro­cessing the uncertain times
we live in naturally considers fear-­based choices first.
But we have to learn to override that. Compassionate
teachers are better than the primitive reactionary be-
ing that only thinks of survival. We can believe in and
make true the promise that e­ very prob­lem is an op-
portunity. As professionals who work with the most
complex organism in the universe, the brain, we
teachers need to keep our heads above ­water and to
consider the possibilities ahead of us.
The “­every person for him(her)self” mindset of
the first wave of the pandemic showed us that the few
who ­were prepared to lead ­were wonderful assets, but
not always pre­sent in ­every school, which prolonged
the panic, unfortunately. Prestigious universities, even
some known for training strategic planners and crisis
man­ ag­
ers of the ­future, had missteps at the start
(Peters & Besley, 2020). Entire school districts changed
reopening plans a dozen times over the summer of
2020, and even then had to adjust again in the fall and
spring. It was clear that when the pandemic began,
­there ­were not enough “master planners” out ­there
who understood the subtle workings of the brain and
who knew that what ­people ­really needed was to feel
safe and connected before being asked to start higher-­
order thinking (Taylor et al., 2017). Planning is a
higher executive function. Before you can plan, you
need to have three other “lower” executive functions
in place, namely inhibitory control, working memory,
and cognitive flexibility (Diamond, 2013). All three
are impaired by fear, and t­ here was a lot of fear g­ oing
around at the beginning of the pandemic.
A handful of school administrators I worked with
during the first months of the global shutdown showed
­great leadership, however. This was uncharted terri-
tory, so many decisions ­ were questioned. National
mandates to open schools confused many decisions
made at the local level to close, and public schools felt
even more vulnerable as they w ­ ere threatened with
bud­get cuts if they ­didn’t follow the push to reopen.
And while the leaders w ­ ere debating, many teachers
spent the summer in limbo. The wonderful teachers at
the Kamehameha Schools in Hawaii, however, the
MICDS school in Missouri, the Education1st programs
in Florida, and ­others ­were more proactive. I had the
honor of helping them navigate ­ these uncertain
­waters, and watched them react swiftly to begin think-
ing about moving online in a way that attended to
people first. They realized that commiseration and
­
sharing ­were impor­tant steps in lowering the levels of
anxiety every­one was feeling, which gave them per-
mission to feel self-­compassion. They intuited that
1 + 1=3, or that you might have a good idea and I
might have a good idea, but the minute we discuss
them openly and share, we are likely to come up with
xiv Introduction
an idea that is superior to what e­ ither of us would
have developed on our own. ­ These school leaders,
many from private preK–12 private institutions, had
both the resources and the foresight to create proac-
tive professional development opportunities to upskill
teacher competencies. More importantly, they helped
their teachers have the right attitude about the change.
Rather than “I need to . . . ,” teachers began to say “I
get to . . .” as they reshaped education. They took time
to rethink past infrastructure and curriculum design in
new ways to match their emerging vision of what edu-
cation would be like in the not-­ too-­distant ­future.
­These groups managed to understand that g­ oing on-
line, in part or in full, would be part of the new normal
forevermore.
To start, ­these and other ­great educators realized
they needed to understand and evaluate the many op-
tions in front of them—­like all of the ways the furni-
ture can be arranged in a new house—so that they
could pick and choose carefully to get the right envi-
ronment they wanted, and make the most of the new
space. Once they had validated the emotions around
the change, they leveraged them to action. If we “get
to” rethink education, where do we start? This opened
up wide-­ranging conversations around e­ very facet of
teaching, learning, evaluation, resources, activities,
and pedagogy.
The pandemic and the subsequent move to online
classrooms brought attention to the way conventional
curriculum had shortchanged so many topics in edu-
cation. As teachers worked to plan how to share stu-
dents’ online time together, they started to negotiate a
new set of subjects and priorities—­ some favoring
social–­emotional learning over math, and critical
thinking over language. For the first time in years,
teachers ­ were all collectively wondering about the
ways society had prioritized some subjects over ­others.
(Q. Why did math get so many hours and physical education
and art so few? A. To pass the test at the end of the year. Q.
And why is the test so impor­tant? A. ­Because the district ad-
ministration said so. Q. Why? A. ­Because funding is tied to
scores. Q. Why? A. Hmmm. Good question.) Other teach-
ers realized that they had been working in solitary for
de­cades, but if they pooled their resources and worked
together, they could achieve more complex learning
goals in a more transdisciplinary way in a shorter
amount of time. Collaboration won the day.
For example, five 8th-­grade geometry teachers I
was working with in the summer of 2020 realized they
had all been toying with the idea of flipping their class-
rooms for years, but ­didn’t do so ­until they w­ ere tipped
by the pandemic. But they also realized with just a few
weeks to plan it would be an impossible task to make
videos of all of the weekly content goals individually.
They understood that by dividing and conquering,
they could split the video making and complete the
design of a full semester before the fall. They also
found this forced them to align their learning goals
further, which increased the chances that every­one,
in­de­pen­dent of the teacher, would end up achieving
similar learning outcomes. By sharing the video con-
tent for flipping and aligning their learning objectives,
they all now have more time to focus on giving quality
feedback to students, and to designing engaging class-
room activities. This ideal situation—­colleagues with
the right attitude, who knew and liked each other, and
who shared the goal—is not always the case, however,
so teachers may have to look for collaboration outside
of their own institutions.
Another teacher I observed strug­gled to find part-
ners to work with, u­ ntil she discovered TeacherTube, a
kind of YouTube for teachers. T ­ here she found virtual
soulmates from around the globe who willingly shared
their videos with her. She began contributing to the
pool of resources as well, and now has friends and
workmates from all around the world. Some teachers
who do not have natu­ral collaborators and/or teach
multiple grade levels on their own ­will have to work
harder to identify partners outside of their learning
communities, or they ­will have to go it alone. Creativity
can go a long way ­toward promoting innovative solu-
tions, however. Homeschooling websites, for example,
have united willing parents and teachers in develop-
ing materials in a collaborative way, and platforms like
Khan Acad­emy have made evidence-­based activities
­free and open to all. It might take a bit more effort, but
help is near.
­These new “prob­lems” can lead to additional cre-
ative insight. The need to coordinate online time to
avoid Zoom fatigue (Fosslien & Duffy, 2020) spurred on
innovative ideas using low-­or no-­tech options, in-
cluding indigenous knowledge and “old” ways of shar-
ing information. Students in Hawaii returned to
stargazing and leaf counting to replace unauthentic
online science textbooks, and o ­ thers in Ec­ua­dor used
traditional knowledge to look for plant-­based options
to teach biology. Some schools in New York boxed and
mailed minilabs to each student to do chemistry from
home, while ­others in Zambia invested in digital tools
with built-in apps to replace face-­to-­face classes.
Moving online has also challenged h ­ uman inter-
action. One teacher recently revealed that a­ fter be-
coming more familiar with synchronous (real-­time)
and asynchronous (in the students’ own time) learn-
ing activities, remembering steps in backward design
(decide objectives then evaluation, then activities), and
 Introduction xv
laying out a g­ reat course in her school’s LMS (learning
management system), she now thinks that teachers’
anx­i­eties are inversed. The teachers at her school con-
fess that they now feel that g­ oing online is the easy
part, and that ­going back to face-­to-­face is what is
scary. What w ­ ill ­going back to school look like? How ­will our
physical spaces change? Is hybrid learning ­really the logical
intermediary step? Can every­thing we learn about online be
transferred back to face-­to-­face settings? The key to adapta-
tion is to carefully choose what we keep in this “new
normal.”
Many have taken this on as an inspirational chal-
lenge to their creativity. Every­one is trying, but no one
has all the answers. It’s like moving to a new country
in which none of the customs are familiar. For many,
moving online became the best solution to sustaining
education, despite being unknown. And as we became
more accustomed to Zoom meetings for f­ amily gather-
ings, work, and social events, schooling began to take
on a new form that would remain long ­after the vac-
cine was in place.
So many teachers, told to rethink every­ thing,
have actually done so. They started from the begin-
ning and asked the big questions. Why do we educate?
How should we teach to meet all students’ needs? How can
we best respond to individual gaps in knowledge that prevent
students from mastering understanding? Are we evaluating
the right ­things? Are ­there new tools to assess? What should
we be teaching? And many have found inspiration in
some classics, such as Bloom’s mastery learning
(Bloom, 1968; 1984): Start with what we want to
achieve at the end of the day as the objective, then
give as many entry points to the information as pos­si­
ble so that each student begins at their own starting
point, then be flexible with time and abundant with
feedback. In many ways, Bloom’s ideas remain just as
impor­tant ­today as they w ­ ere 50 years ago. The main
difference from Bloom’s original idea and now is the
belief that digital educational resources can help us
speed up the time for learning b ­ ecause we can differ-
entiate homework, a concept rarely practiced ­until re-
cently. ­There are amazing amounts of resources that
are available to help our kids achieve, for ­free, begin-
ning at their starting points, not where the school cal-
endar or textbook says they should be. Teachers are
more aware than ever of the range of choices avail-
able, and have begun to identify which resources to
use to personalize asynchronous learning. This means
teachers are beginning to understand how to let
­machines do what machines do best, and to let p­ eople do
what p­ eople do best. The LMS can correct your quiz,
Grammarly can correct your comma splices, Turn-­It-­In
can check for plagiarism, but only a teacher can
motivate as they explain how smart your ­mistake was
­because you tried to use an intelligent meta­phor but
fell short. Interactive math apps like Maths 4–6 can
improve rehearsal of counting by twos (Outhwaite
et al., 2019), but only the teacher can explain the
meaning of “two” in a way that a child grasps the rela-
tionship and not just the ability to parrot a pattern.
One of the most positive outcomes of the pan-
demic is the world’s newfound appreciation of teach-
ers. For the first time in our 180-­year history of public
education, teachers are fi­ nally recognized as being
more than sources of information that transfer ideas to
empty vessels, and are now looked on as being models
of strong character, patient and loving caregivers, and
designers of valuable life experiences.
Nothing Will Be the Same Again
As the Coronavirus makes ­these changes inevitable,
we hear p ­ eople begin to chant that “nothing w ­ ill be
the same again.” And that’s okay. Change is good, so
long as it’s planned. Like a good move. So let’s ask:
What do we keep?
What do we toss out?
What do we give away?
What do we store?
What do we replace?
What do we need to acquire?
What Do We Keep?
Humane treatment. I suggest that we keep the
humanity and personalization many of our teachers
use to lift up our students and to motivate them.
Formative feedback. We keep detailed, formative
feedback that develops metacognitive skills and guides
kids in learning how to learn.
Literacies. We keep the deep, rich vocabulary-­
abundant exchanges in as many languages as pos­si­ble,
with as many ­people as pos­si­ble, for as long as pos­si­
ble, in as many contexts as pos­si­ble.
What Do We Toss Out?
Teaching to the test. We toss out a twisted evalu-
ation system that teaches to the test.
Timed exams. We toss out timed exams except for
t­ hose ­things that depend on time (like learning CPR to
save a life).
xvi Introduction
View that “­those who ­can’t do, teach.” We toss
out self-­and societal perceptions that teachers are low
on the totem pole of prestige in a community.
What Do We Give Away?
Rows. We give away the rows of chairs and send
them to places of worship. Education is an exchange,
not a lecture.
Bad bud­get choices. We give away budget-­driven
decisions to businesses whose focus is on the bottom
line.
What Do We Store?
Textbooks. We store away the textbooks that ­will
someday be studied by historians as a testament to
what publishers valued in 2020.
What Do We Replace?
Evaluation. We replace high-­ stakes summative
evaluation with formative ones. We replace standards-­
based grading with mastery learning objectives. We
replace age-­related cutoffs for achievement with
experienced-­based milestones.
Curriculum. We replace curriculum based on sub-
jects with real-­world, inter-­and transdisciplinary
thinking. We replace K–12 curriculum with transgen-
erational, lifelong learning. We replace Western-­
centric topics with world gifts, including indigenous
teachings. We replace lip ser­vice to social–­emotional
learning with development of the w ­ hole child.
Resources. We replace textbooks with “bundles”
of individually curated ­
free and open resources on
each topic.
Pedagogy. We replace busywork with time for re-
flection, deeper learning, and mastery.
Actors. We replace teacher–­student de­pen­dency
with community-­dependent upbringing. We replace
decisions by politicians with decisions by all stakehold-
ers, including students, parents, civil society, and
universities.
Environments. We replace face-­ to-­
face instruc-
tion with multi-­modalities, including the Internet, ra-
dio, and tele­vi­sion.
Vision. We replace the idea that education is a
privilege with the idea that education is a right, and
that it can be delivered in cookie-­cutter fashion with
the idea that it should be differentiated and meet stu-
dents at their starting points.
What Do We Acquire?
The Right Attitude. First and foremost, we need
to acquire the right attitude about change. Prob­lems
are opportunities and flexibility is a valuable personal-
ity trait. Resiliency, above all, is the starting point for
pos­si­ble change.
New Skills. ­Great teachers know they need to ac-
quire several new skill sets. Teaching, managing, per-
sonalizing, communicating, and evaluating are all
slightly dif­fer­ent online. A teacher who is g­ reat face-­
to-­face may not naturally be g­ reat online, but learning
the necessary skill sets ­will improve the chances of
success.
Mourning and Then a Change for the Better
­ fter you move, nothing is the same again. Moving is
A
a ­little like death, except you get to plan. To deal with
death, you have to traverse stages of grief (Kübler-­
Ross & Kessler, 2005): 1. Denial and isolation; 2. Anger;
3. Bargaining; 4. Depression; 5. Ac­cep­tance. But even
­after we reach ac­cep­tance, we still have to make per-
haps the most impor­tant choice. We can be resigned or
we can be empowered. We can try and return to the
old ways, or we can seize an opportunity.
As educators, now is the time to ask ourselves,
What do I keep?
What do I toss out?
What do I give away?
What do I store?
What do I replace?
This book is out to celebrate the wonderful, unpre­ce­
dented times we live in, and the exciting opportunities
we have to make impor­tant changes in education.
I strongly suggest taking notes while reading. Why
write? The brain needs well-­functioning attention sys-
tems and well-­functioning memory systems to learn
(Kuhl & Chun, 2014). By writing, we extend our frag-
ile memory and we focus our attention. When ­people
take notes, they think about new information; writing
is the highest form of thinking. So, take notes of ­things
that are new, write down anything that sparks your
curiosity, and think about what you might change in
 Introduction
your personal or professional practice based on the
new information. This is called a “3-2-1 Reflection”:
Identify three things you learned, two things you will
keep researching, and one thing you will consider
changing in your personal or professional life based on
the information in each chapter. This helps document
a clear professional development path.
TECHNOLOGY AND MIND, BRAIN,
AND EDUCATION SCIENCE
The modern educator’s role is being transformed by
current circumstances and by new information about
the brain. This new profile, urged on by international
organizations like the OECD (Guerriero, 2017) and
UNESCO (Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2019a), looks at teach-
ing from a learning sciences perspective, and leverages
technology to enhance outcomes. This new teacher pro-
file existed before COVID-19, but the pandemic makes
it all the more important. A 2020 study conducted
with 112 experts from 30 countries around the world
showed a growing consensus about what all teachers
should be taught about the brain (Tokuhama-Espinosa,
Figure I.1. Teachers’ New Conceptual Knowledge
The Educator as Learning Scientist
Content
Knowledge
Pedagogical
Content
Knowledge
Mind, Brain,
and Education
Science
xvii
et al., 2020), and today’s pandemic is accelerating ac-
ceptance of the need for new technological competen-
cies for educators. This makes the times ripe for
wonderful new initiatives in education.
To be complete, teacher knowledge should include
content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, technology,
and the merged Mind, Brain, and Education learning sci-
ences (see Figure I.1).
Teachers need to know their content or subject ar-
eas. This means that if one doesn’t know history, one
shouldn’t be a history teacher (Ball et al., 2008). The
next step is to know how to teach, or pedagogical knowl-
edge (Guerriero, 2014). Once a teacher knows both
content knowledge and how to teach at a basic level,
then pedagogical content knowledge is next (Baxter &
Lederman, 1999; Nilsson, 2008; Scriven, 1994). This
means, for example, that a 3rd-grade teacher can iden-
tify patterns of errors in math that might occur when
a child does a multiplication problem, and can make
those mistakes visible to the learner.
The third and more recent element of teachers’
knowledge is technology. Ever since the introduction
of the TPACK model (technological, pedagogical, and
content knowledge) in 2006 (Mishra & Koehler, 2006),
Pedagogical
Knowledge
Context and Culture
Technology
xviii Introduction
teachers have been challenged to learn what digital
tools are out ­there to help reach learning objectives.
This means distinguishing between all of the noise
from advertisers, and using knowledge about how the
brain learns to make careful choices and select digital
resources that help reach learning goals. For example,
­great teachers know how to choose technologies that
save time, which can then be used to focus on indi-
vidual learner needs. By using the right tools, teachers
can leverage the possibility of more and better interac-
tions with students. A learning platform might have
self-­graded quizzes, for example, which saves a teacher
time. That time might be used to talk to the student
about why he might have made certain m ­ istakes on
the quiz, and what he might do the next time. The
machine gives him the score. The teacher shows the
student how to improve. While t­ here are thousands of
digital resources available, the choice of the right ac-
tivities and resources is facilitated by the fourth key
component of teachers’ new pedagogical knowledge,
and that is how the brain works.
This means that in addition to TPACK, the newest
ele­ment of teacher knowledge includes Mind, Brain,
and Education (MBE) science. MBE science is part of
the broader learning sciences that study how h ­ umans
learn best (Fischer, 2007). MBE asks the question,
What do we r­ eally know about h
­ uman learning and how the
brain functions, and what can be leveraged within our own
classrooms to better improve learning outcomes? Once an
elusive question, ­there is a slowly growing interna-
tional consensus about what teachers should know
from neuroscience about how the brain learns, which
follows in Chapter 1.
Use of MBE and the learning sciences knowledge
has to then be put into our social contexts. While MBE
studies all facets of psy­chol­ogy, neuroscience, and ed-
ucation, including the ways h ­ uman learning is influ-
enced by social–­emotional exchanges, ge­ne­tics, and
neuro pro­cesses, it is impor­tant to add an additional
layer of consideration that is created by society. We
need to know each learner’s background and the cul-
ture within which they are learning (Hammond,
2014), including the educational culture of their insti-
tutions, not only the national culture or ­family origins,
in order to more effectively apply brain science to the
classroom. Context is vital to understanding learning
pro­cesses as t­ here are some aspects of learning that are
deeply influenced by not only the cultural artifacts of
language and symbols we use, but also by patterns of
­human be­hav­ior, such as sleep and eating routines.
This means that contextualizing what we know about
­human learning brings us closer to a true understand-
ing of individual learning needs. This also suggests that
the professionalization of ­ great teachers means not
only knowing one’s subject and how to teach it, but
also knowing how to leverage technology based on
how the brain learns best. ­Great teachers are learning
scientists. This is the science and the art of teaching.
 CHAPTER 1

Teaching Online Using Mind, Brain,

and Education Science

Mind, Brain, and Education science (MBE) adds an
additional step to grow professional knowledge about
how to improve teaching (Figure 1.1). Since 2004,
academic programs in this transdisciplinary field have
widened the spread of t­hese ideas as basic teacher
knowledge (Tokuhama-­Espinosa, 2015b). The princi­
ples in Mind, Brain, and Education science are becom-
ing familiar to teachers as evidence for them grows
each year and they are increasingly shared in profes-
sional development settings.
TEACHERS’ NEW PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Avoid Neuromyths
First and foremost, ­great teachers avoid myths about
the brain and how it works. Some ­people still believe in
false ideas like being “right-­brained” or “left-­brained”
(Corballis, 2014), or that they have learning styles
(Rogowsky et al., 2020), or can multitask (Rosen,
2008). None of ­these ­things is true, and they should
be avoided as they do harm (Tokuhama-­Espinosa,
2019c) ­because they reduce h ­ uman potential. Telling
a person that they only use 10% of their brain
(Radford, 1999), or that girls c­ an’t do math as well as
boys (Fine, 2010) limits their potential. Telling mi-
norities they ­aren’t as smart as White kids (Sussman,
2014) or that intelligence is well mea­sured by a stan-
dardized test (Popham, 1999) limits the potential of
society. Promising intellectual gains if you eat a cer-
tain diet (Bender, 1981), take a certain pill (Zohny,
2015), or play a certain brain-­ training game
(Kowalski, 2018) not only limits potential, but also
takes away resources from proven pedagogical prac-
tices. As Pashler and colleagues showed in their
study for Psychological Science in the Public Interest
(2008), believing in ­things like learning styles diverts

Figure 1.1. ​The New Steps in Teachers’ Professional Development

Attitudes & Principles Tenets

Prejudices from Mind, Brain,
(Neuromyths) and Education science
Understanding Proven
1 Letting Go 2 Brain Principles
from Mind, Brain, Culture Instructional
and Education science Guidelines
Using Deciding What Should
3 Applied Tenets
4 Incorporating Culture 5 Happen in Class

False information Universal aspects Individual aspects Social influences What should happen
about the brain of learning true of learning; on pattern and in the classroom
and learning for all humans true for all within category recognition
a broad spectrum of Example:
Example: Example: human variation Affective aspects 50 Practical Applications of
Some people are All new learning passes of learning Mind, Brain, and Education
“right-brained” and through the filter of prior Example: science
others are ”left-brained” experience Example:
Sleeping and dreaming are
vital for learning Numeric symbol
representation

Source: Author

1
2 Bringing the Neuroscience of Learning to Online Teaching

precious funds to mythical activities and away from
proven ones. Myths about race, gender, brain archi-
tecture, or inherited limitations on intelligence stunt
growth mindsets and the ability to live up to one’s
potential (Tokuhama-­ Espinosa, 2019c), which is
why their recognition and elimination is the first
step in integrating the learning sciences into teach-
ing. Readers are invited to see the book Neuromyths
(Tokuhama-­Espinosa, 2019c) for a list of more than
70 myths still prevalent in teacher lit­ er­
at­ure and
how to debunk them.
Use MBE Principles
The second step is to learn about the princi­ ples of
MBE, six evidence-­supported fundamental concepts
about the brain and learning that are true across all
cultures and all age groups (­Table 1.1) that ­were agreed
upon in 2020 by experts from 30 dif­fer­ent countries
(Tokuhama-­Espinosa et al., 2020).
Princi­ples are ­things that are true for all ­human
brains in­de­pen­dent of where the learners live, how
old they are, or their cultural upbringing. Expert
teachers know that t­here are no two identical brains
(Princi­ple 1). While it is true that t­ here are more simi-
larities than differences in ­human brains (Coo­lidge &
Wynn, 2018), as shown by typical networks used for
learning math and language, for example, none of
t­hese networks is identical in any two ­people due to
individual life experiences.
Many teachers also know that individuals are born
with dif­fer­ent potentials thanks to the genes they in-
herit from their parents and based on the potentiation
of only a fraction of t­hose genes within the context
and the culture in which that person grows up (Princi­
ple 2). This means that both nature and nurture con-
tribute to what an individual is capable of achieving in
life. Additional studies in the area of resiliency also
show that ­free ­will—­choosing to overcome the odds
created by one’s nature or nurture—­ can influence
learning potential (Shpeizer & Glassner, 2020).
­Great teachers incorporate the fact that all new
learning passes through the filter of prior experience
(Princi­ple 3). The brain is perhaps the most efficient
organism in the universe, and it uses its energy wisely.
To avoid expending this energy unnecessarily, signals
that enter the brain are first reviewed in memory sys-
tems (Mather & Sutherland, 2011), giving a­ dditional
support to the idea that teachers should stimulate
prior knowledge for effective instruction.
Many teachers also know that t­here are constant
changes in the brain (Princi­ple 4), meaning patience is
often required as much of learning is invisible to the
naked eye. T ­ here are a lot of t­hings that happen at a
molecular level in the brain before they are vis­i­ble in
be­hav­ior. Top teachers re­spect the learning cycle in the

Table 1.1. Princi­ples in Mind, Brain, and Education Science 2020

WHAT PRINCI­PLES OF LEARNING ARE SUPPORTED BY MIND, BRAIN, AND EDUCATION SCIENCE?
Princi­ple 1. ­ uman brains are unique as ­human f­ aces. While the basic structure of most ­humans’ brains is the
H
UNIQUENESS same (similar parts in similar regions), no two brains are identical. The ge­ne­tic makeup unique to
each person combines with life experiences and f­ ree ­will to shape neural pathways.
Princi­ple 2. Each individual’s brain is differently prepared to learn dif­fer­ent tasks. Learning capacities are
DIFFERENT ­shaped by the context of the learning, prior learning experiences, personal choice, an individual’s
POTENTIALS biology and ge­ne­tic makeup, pre-­and peri-­natal events, and environmental exposures.
Princi­ple 3. PRIOR New learning is influenced by prior experience. The efficiency of the brain economizes effort and
EXPERIENCES energy by ensuring that external stimuli are first decoded, compared, both passively and actively,
with existing memories.
Princi­ple 4. The brain changes constantly with experience. The brain is a complex, dynamic, integrated system
CONSTANT that is constantly changed by individual experiences. T ­ hese changes occur at a molecular level
CHANGES ­either si­mul­ta­neously, in parallel, or even before they are vis­ib
­ le in be­hav­ior.
Princi­ple 5. The brain is neuro-­plastic. Neuroplasticity exists throughout the lifespan though t­ here are notable
NEUROPLASTICITY developmental differences by age.
Princi­ple 6. MEMORY Learning involves multiple cognitive pro­cesses, including memory and attention. ­There is no new
SYSTEMS AND learning without some form of memory and some form of attention. Learners are not always
ATTENTION conscious of ­these pro­cesses. Most school learning requires well-­functioning short, working and
SYSTEMS long-­term memory systems, and conscious attention. However, other types of learning can occur
without conscious attention (e.g., procedural, habituation, sensitization, and even episodic memory).
Source: Tokuhama-­Espinosa et al., 2020. Supporting evidence for the Principles can be found here.
­Table 1.2. Tenets in Mind, Brain, and Education Science 2020
WHAT TENETS OF LEARNING ARE SUPPORTED BY MIND, BRAIN, AND EDUCATION SCIENCE?
Tenet 1. MOTIVATION
Tenet 2. EMOTIONS AND
COGNITION
Tenet 3. STRESS
Tenet 4. ANXIETY
Tenet 5. DEPRESSION
Tenet 6. Learning is influenced
by both CHALLENGE AND
THREAT
Tenet 7. Reactions to FACIAL
EXPRESSIONS
Tenet 8. The brain interprets
­HUMAN VOICES
Tenet 9. SOCIAL
INTERACTIONS
Tenet 10. ATTENTION
Tenet 11. Most LEARNING IS
CYCLICAL
Tenet 12. Learning involves
CONSCIOUS AND
UNCONSCIOUS PROCESSES
Tenet 13. Learning is
DEVELOPMENTAL (nature
and nurture) as well as
EXPERIENTIAL (nurture).
Tenet 14. Learning engages the
BODY AND BRAIN
Tenet 15. SLEEP AND
DREAMING
Tenet 16. NUTRITION
Tenet 17. PHYSICAL
ACTIVITY
Tenet 18. USE IT OR LOSE IT
Tenet 19. FEEDBACK
Tenet 20. RELEVANT AND
MEANINGFUL CONTEXTS
Tenet 21. NOVELTY and
PATTERNS
Source: Tokuhama 2010 and Tokuhama-­Espinosa et al., 2020. Supporting evidence for the Tenets can be found here.
MOTIVATION influences learning. However, what motivates one person and how may not motivate
another in the same way.
EMOTIONS AND COGNITION are mutually influential. Not all stimuli result in the same affective
state for all ­people.
STRESS influences learning. However, what stresses one person and how may not stress another in the
same way.
ANXIETY influences learning. However, what ­causes anxiety in one person may not cause anxiety in
another.
DEPRESSION influences learning. However, what ­causes depression in one person may not cause
depression in another.
CHALLENGE AND THREAT as perceived by the learner. What a person finds challenging or
threatening is highly individualized as are their reactions to the stimuli.
FACIAL EXPRESSIONS are both universal in that t­ here are six or seven emotional states recognized
by all ­humans, as well as highly individualized in that a person’s culture as well as their own past life
experiences condition responses to ­faces.
­HUMAN VOICES unconsciously and almost immediately. The perception of tones and inflections of
­human voices are both universal in that basic emotional states, such as anger, are recognized by all
­humans, as well as highly individualized in that a person’s culture as well as their own past life
experiences condition responses.
SOCIAL INTERACTIONS influence learning. ­Humans are social beings who learn from and with each
other. Dif­fer­ent amounts of social interactions around learning are desired by dif­fer­ent ­people.
ATTENTION is a complex phenomenon comprised of multiple systems supporting functions such as
metacognition, self-­reflection, mindfulness, states of high alertness, selective attention, and focused
attention. ­These systems work to dif­fer­ent degrees in dif­fer­ent ­people. ­These systems also have dif­fer­ent
relationships with one another in dif­fer­ent ­people.
LEARNING IS CYCLICAL and advances and recedes based on stages of growth, reflection,
consolidation, and the amount of repetition to which one is exposed.
CONSCIOUS AND UNCONSCIOUS PROCESSES, which may differ by individuals based on their
training and other individual experiences. Learning is also described as implicit (passive or unaware
pro­cesses) and explicit (active or aware pro­cesses).
Learning is DEVELOPMENTAL (nature and nurture) as well as EXPERIENTIAL (nurture). A
person’s age, cognitive stage of development, and past experiences all contribute to learning and do so
differently for each person.
Learning engages the BODY AND BRAIN, which is sometimes called embodied cognition.
SLEEP AND DREAMING influence learning in dif­fer­ent ways. Sufficient sleep allows the brain to pay
attention during wakeful states and both sleep and dreaming (normally rapid eye movement [REM])
sleep contribute to memory consolidation. The amount of sleep and dreaming individuals need can vary
based on cultural norms and habits, circumstances, motivation, ge­ne­tics and rehearsed sleep hygiene
practices.
NUTRITION influences learning. Basic nutritional needs are common to all ­humans; however, the
frequency of food intake, the gut-­brain axis and microbiome balance, and some dietary needs vary by
individual. People cannot learn well when they are hungry in the moment, or systematically
malnourished.
PHYSICAL ACTIVITY influences learning. However, dif­fer­ent individuals need dif­fer­ent amounts of
physical activity to perform optimally. Interspersing physical and cognitive activity may improve learning.
USE IT OR LOSE IT. Brains that remain active cognitively help development and can also stave off
cognitive decline in the aging brain. Individual variations including experiences and ge­ne­tic
predispositions influence the final outcomes of interventions, however.
FEEDBACK about learning pro­gress influences learning outcomes. Feedback itself can be a source of
learning. The type, frequency, and use of feedback can influence learning outcomes, which varies by
individual. Dif­fer­ent tasks require dif­fer­ent types of feedback, and the degree to which it is attended to,
perceived, and interpreted correctly depends on the context.
It is easier to retrieve memories when facts and skills are embedded in individually RELEVANT AND
MEANINGFUL CONTEXTS. However, what is relevant or meaningful varies by individual.
Brains detect NOVELTY and seek out PATTERNS. However, what is novel to or recognized as a
pattern by one individual may not be novel or may not be recognized as a pattern by another.
4 Bringing the Neuroscience of Learning to Online Teaching
brain that requires new ideas to be built on founda-
tional concepts over time.
Most teachers now know ­there is neuroplasticity
throughout the life span (Princi­ple 5). This means not
only that lifelong learning can and should be an edu-
cational aspiration, but that the goal of a growth mind-
set as opposed to a fixed mindset (Dweck & Yeager,
2019) has neurophysiological support. Caring teachers
help their students see that their potential is only
­limited by their belief in their brain’s ability to learn.
And fi­nally, expert teachers know that memory
systems and attention systems are vital for learning
(Princi­ple 6). They understand that “memory” is not
the same as offering “memoristic” activities in which
mindless repetition replaces meaning, but rather that
memory involves deeper learning, which can be re-
trieved and transferred to new contexts with ease.
Prepared teachers also understand that t­ here are mul-
tiple systems for attention—­ alerting, orienting, sus-
tained (Fan et al., 2005)—­that all need to be in tune in
order for successful learning to occur, and that not
­every child who fails to pay attention has a “deficit.”
Use MBE Tenets
Also impor­tant for teachers to be familiar with are
MBE’s 21 learning tenets, which cover a number of
topics across a range of ­human variance (Tokuhama-­
Espinosa, 2010; Tokuhama-­Espinosa et al., 2020). They
differ from princi­ples, which work roughly the same
for all p
­ eople b
­ ecause tenets depend squarely on the
differences between learners. For example, teachers
know that motivation is impor­tant in learning; how-
ever, what motivates one person d ­ oesn’t necessarily
motivate another. Tenets extend beyond the neuro-­
and psychological aspects of learning and into the phys-
ical. For example, ­great teachers also know that sleep
and dreaming play a huge role in learning outcomes.
But how much sleep an individual needs varies signifi-
cantly due to ge­ne­tics as well as to cultural norms.
The tenets rely on teachers knowing students well
enough to be able to leverage this information in the
specific context of the learner. In yet another example,
every­one knows that stress influences learning, but
what stresses one student may not stress o ­ thers. This
careful balancing act by knowing teachers is what per-
mits the group to advance as a class while respecting
individual needs.
Tenets call attention to t­hings we often know in-
tuitively, and for which we now have thousands of
studies and strong evidence. ­ Great teachers know
that the tenets help explain why the same interven-
tion has dif­fer­ent effects on dif­fer­ent learners. While
most of the tenets may seem intuitive to many teach-
ers, they are harder to apply than one might think
­because teachers must know the students well to be
able to apply them, and even then, to know is not enough.
Knowing that t­ here is no cognition without emotion is
useful if the teacher realizes a child is emotionally dis-
tressed as her parents are divorcing, but ­doesn’t have
an impact if the teacher does not know this about the
child nor act on that knowledge.
­Table 1.2 lists the 21 tenets with a brief explana-
tion of each. As we go through the recommended ped-
agogies, we ­will refer back to the list of the princi­ples
and tenets.
Place Learning within Cultural Contexts
­ reat teachers apply the princi­ples and tenets in the
G
context of a specific learning culture. ­There are dif­fer­
ent cultural norms, including the cultural artifacts
such as writing systems as well as customs, that change
how we apply the tenets. Cultures and contexts also
vary by school and institution as well. This means that
ethnic, national, and institutional cultures can influ-
ence learning. G ­ reat teachers know how the com­
binations of cultures in a student’s life can impact
learning.
ONLINE DESIGN USING MIND, BRAIN, AND
EDUCATION TEACHING
Teaching and teachers are at the heart of ­great educa-
tion. Knowing how to choose the right interventions
for the right person at the right time can look like
magic to the untrained eye. Sometimes this appears as
a teacher’s instinctual desire to attend to a child’s emo-
tional state before jumping into the lesson, or the abil-
ity to perceive a specific type of error that a student is
about to commit when resolving a prob­lem. This is
called good pedagogy. The purposeful grouping of
mixed-­ability learners to facilitate peer instruction;
the thoughtful feedback comment that illuminates
­mistakes in a way that motivates; the quick identifi-
cation of a missing piece of prerequisite knowledge
that needs attending to before new information can
be shared are all examples of good pedagogical
interventions.
The science of teaching and learning uses a trans-
disciplinary lens to explain why some teaching inter-
ventions work better than ­ others. ­There is solid
evidence that supports certain teaching practices (e.g.,
Darling Hammond et al., 2020; Hattie, 2012; Marzano
et al., 2003), as well as emerging evidence of how the
 Teaching Online Using Mind, Brain, and Education Science 5
brain learns best (e.g., Immordino-­Yang et al., 2019;
Maheu et al., 2019; Merzenich et al., 2016; Schwartz
& Paré-­ Blagoev, 2017). T ­here is definitive research
from psy­ chol­
ogy on learning design (e.g., Dweck,
2008; Gardner, 2011; Ormrod, 2017; Sapolsky, 2017),
as well as influences from cognitive science (e.g.,
Agarwal & Roediger III, 2018; Damasio, 2000;
Diamond, 2013; Kandel, 2007; Pinker, 2003). By uni-
fying the fields of Mind (psy­chol­ogy), Brain (neurosci-
ence, ge­ne­tics), and Education (pedagogy), teachers
can identify some power­ful tools in both online and
face-­to-­face contexts. Fifty of t­ hese best practices ­were
shared in Making Classrooms Better: 50 Practical
Applications of Mind, Brain, and Education Science
(Tokuhama-­Espinosa, 2014), in which proven educa-
tional interventions shown by Hattie (2012) ­were ex-
plained through a neuroscience lens. To reach the 40
best practices suggested h ­ ere for online learning, the
original list of 50 practices was reevaluated in 2020
against the most recent evidence from the science of
learning lit­er­a­ture, and filtered by evidence of their
successful usage in online settings. The learning sci-
ences (Figure P.1) are vast and range from artificial in-
telligence to cultural psy­chol­ogy. All of the learning
science subfields ­were reviewed for evidence for the
interventions mentioned h ­ere. Evidence-­ informed
practice balanced with teacher experiences in real
classroom settings—­ which ­ today can mean remote
learning—is at the heart of learning. This book goes
from the classroom to the lab, and then tests itself
against online settings to confirm best practices.
The word pedagogy comes from the Greek, mean-
ing child-­leader, referring to the outcome of the art and
science of teaching. As a craft, teaching has roots in
the science of learning, and pedagogy focuses on
methods, practices, activities, and strategies that teach-
ers apply to help learners realize their maximum
potential.
In making pedagogical decisions, intentional
teachers have traditionally asked themselves ques-
tions like:
• When should students do individual work,
and when should they do group work?
• When should teachers use implicit
instruction, and when should they use
explicit instruction?
• When should teachers use the Socratic
method of questioning, and when should
they use direct instruction?
• When is it appropriate to apply problem-based
work, and when should teachers do project-
based work?
• When is the best time to directly define ideas,
and when is it best to use an analogy to
circuitously explain a concept?
• When should teachers use collaborative
learning strategies, and when should they use
individual work?
• When should teachers use game-based or play-
based learning, and when should they use
lecture?
• When should teachers get students to discuss
ideas, and when should they get them to
debate ideas?
• When should information simply be
memorized, and when should the learning be
applied in context?
• When should inquiry-based learning be used,
and when should teachers use visualization?
• When should teachers apply behaviorist
theories, and when should they apply social
cognitivist theories of learning (or another
theory altogether)?
• When should teachers model, and when
should they offer feedback?
• When should teachers use formative
evaluation, and when should they use
summative feedback?
• When should teachers use experiential
learning, and when should they use active
learning?
The answers to t­ hese questions lead to methodol-
ogies, strategies, and activities that are legitimate and
have value, but only if used at the right times with the
right kids at the right stage of their learning pro­cesses,
using the right tools, and with the right objective in
mind. Knowing when to choose which option is the key
to good pedagogy. Based on the chosen objectives,
teachers decide on their evaluation criteria and then
must fi­nally elect the right activities and resources.
This is called backward design, a familiar term for many
teachers, and one that is discussed as it relates to the
neuroscience of online learning in Chapter 3.
A teacher’s activities, strategies, and methodolo-
gies might include case studies (e.g., Herreid, 2005),
project-­(e.g., Condliffe, 2017) or problem-­ based
learning (e.g., Savery, 2015), in­ de­
pen­
dent reading
(e.g., Jones & Brown, 2011), research activities (e.g.,
Huebner, 2004), debate (e.g., Rubie-­Davies, 2006), or
Socratic circles (e.g., Fisher et al., 2016). Some have
tried and love the Proj­ ect Zero Thinking Routines
(Ritchhart et  al., 2011) (e.g., “I see . . . ​I think . . . ​I
won­der . . .”; “I used to think . . . ​and now I think. . . .”;
“Think-­ Pair-­
Share”), the creation of daily habits
6 Bringing the Neuroscience of Learning to Online Teaching
around circle time meetings (e.g., Bustamante et al.,
2018), and/or emotion-­board check-­ins (e.g., Bruhn
et al., 2014). Often teachers use interviews or roleplay
to gain perspective taking (e.g., Ertmer et al., 2010), or
they do small-­group, collaborative work in a jigsaw
style (divide and conquer the material) (e.g.,
Marhamah & Mulyadi, 2013). ­Others apply exit tick-
ets (e.g., Danley, 2015) to their daily routine to check
for understanding, or use journaling (e.g., Corbin
Frazier & Eick, 2015) to ensure they keep communica-
tion channels clear. Yet other teachers stimulate writ-
ing around a question of the day (e.g., Garwood et al.,
2017) or a one-­minute paper (“tell me at least one
­thing you know about the topic and at least one t­ hing
you want to know around the topic”) (e.g., Angelo &
Cross, 1993). All of t­ hese traditional activities still have
a place in online learning, and they are amplified in
virtual contexts and when paired with the right peda-
gogical approaches.
Pedagogies are distinct from the tools that can com-
plement good teaching. As shared in Figure I.1, ­great
teachers not only know content subject-­area knowl-
edge, and pedagogical knowledge as was expected in
the 1980s, but they also need to know about technol-
ogy (expected from the 1990s onward) and the learn-
ing sciences of Mind, Brain, and Education science
(starting around 2004 onward). To make good choices
in online settings, teachers must be aware of their con-
ditions and contexts. What is “good teaching” varies
by setting, and is mea­sured by objective fulfillment.
Dif­
fer­
ent contexts lend themselves to dif­ fer­
ent
pedagogies, which is why not e­ very teacher ­will find
the same level of success when using the exact same
pedagogy even as they teach the same subject. The
teacher, as well as each student, brings his or her
own dynamic to the teaching–­ learning exchange
(Rodriguez, 2012), which in turn changes the context.
To choose the best pedagogies, teachers need to be
aware of this iterative exchange between the contexts
in which they teach and the student-­to-­student and
teacher–­student dynamics.
CONDITIONS FOR GREAT LEARNING
Some pedagogies depend on conditions to work while
some conditions depend on pedagogies to be successful.
That is, ­there is a mutual interdependence between
the conditions or goals teachers have in educational
settings and the pedagogies that ­either come from or
create ­those conditions. For example, if a school adopts
mastery learning as a goal, it presumes students ­will
work at dif­ fer­
ent paces ­toward common objectives
(Guskey & Anderman, 2013). This means mastery
learning sets up the condition of time flexibility, and
that teachers in that school setting are presumed to be
­free to apply pedagogies like differentiated homework
and offer flexible deadlines.
On the other hand, some pedagogies are depen-
dent on certain conditions to work at their best. For
example, a school with a year-­round, 12-­month calen-
dar can effectively use the pedagogy of interleaving in
a better way than a school with a 10-­month calendar
­because the spacing of learning events is more consis-
tent (Hughes & Lee, 2019). Fi­ nally, conditions and
pedagogies are often interwoven. For example, for a
school to truly espouse the condition of a “­whole child
approach” to learning, classroom pedagogies must re-
flect the individualization of educational practices
(Purnell et al., 2020).
Where Do Conditions Come From?
Macro-­level conditions. Some conditions can be
inherent in the society and the times. For example, the
online learning modality brings with it certain condi-
tions of being on-­screen rather than within touching
distance, a condition brought about by the Coronavirus
pandemic. Another example comes from culture, in
which ­there may be embedded social interaction ex-
pectations depending on one’s role in society. Some
cultures presume girls and boys should be in separate
classrooms, creating a very dif­ fer­
ent dynamic for
learning than mixed classrooms, for example.
Meso-­level conditions. Teaching conditions can
also be dictated by school policies or mission state-
ments. For example, some schools make inclusion an
explicit goal stated in their mission. Other systems,
such as the International Baccalaureate (IB), have
conditions set by their community profile, in which all
members of the community agree to be knowledge-
able, caring, thinking, balanced, principled, reflective,
open-­minded communicators, inquirers, and risk-­
takers (Bullock, 2011). Institutional-­level conditions
often set the philosophical tone of how teaching oc-
curs in that setting.
Micro-­level conditions. Fi­ nally, other teaching
conditions are set by individual teachers. Some teach-
ers use their personal values to guide classroom condi-
tions. For example, a teacher may decide that one of
her yearly objectives is to increase the sense of solidar-
ity and empathy of her students ­toward one other, es-
pecially students with special needs, which may or
may not be implied in the school’s goals.
Table 1.3. Conditions and Goals, Principles and Tenets, and Mantras and Pedagogies

CONDITION PRINCIPLE OR TENET "MANTRA" PEDAGOGY, FACE-TO-FACE AND REMOTE

OR GOAL
Mastery Some people can do steps. Everyone
Learning
P1 Uniqueness can do ramps. Build ramps. Use Universal Design for Learning
P1 Uniqueness
P3 Prior Experiences Same objectives, different processes. Differentiate entry points to the material
Treating everyone fairly does not mean
P1 Uniqueness treating them equally. Differentiate homework
Learning can and should be measured in
P4 Constant Changes terms of Product, Process, and Progress. Use E-portfolios and Rubrics
Frequent, explicit, formative evaluation
P4 Constant Changes serves both student and teacher. Prioritize formative evaluation
P4 Constant Changes
P5 Neuroplasticity
"What can I do better the next time?" Feedforward
Deeper T21 Novelty and Patterns Start with the end in mind. Flip
Learning

T12 Conscious and Unconscious Processes Mind wandering is not a waste of time. Make time for reflection
P3 Prior Experience Leverage culture
P6 Memory Systems and Attention Systems Expect the best
The brain adapts to what it does most.
T12 Conscious and Unconscious Processes Use heuristics, expose bias
T21 Novelty and Patterns Apply interleaving
T6 Challenge and Threat
P2 Different Potentials
Success begets success. Help students find success every day
It is harder to ask a good question Use Questioning; employ the Socratic Method
T20 Relevant and meaningful contexts
than to answer one.
Metacognitive T18 Use It Or Lose It Learning how to learn is a lifelong goal. Use the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory
Awareness
Self-regulation is more important than innate
T2 Emotions and Cognition
intelligence in predicting learning outcomes.
Train Executive Functions
Growth T1 Motivation
Mindset P5 Neuroplasticity Attitude is often more important than aptitude. Love what you do or learn from it
P5 Neuroplasticity
P3 Prior Experiences Learning limits are often self-imposed. Teach lifelong learning objectives
You are more than the sum of your genes
T13 Learning is Developmental and Experiential and zip code. Teach risk and protective factors about brain health

T14 Body and Brain The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Educate the whole child
Dare to Err T6 Challenge and Threat Anyone who can learn from their mistakes
T1 Motivation should be given the opportunity to do so. Make time for "do-overs"

P6 Memory Mistakes are a natural part of learning. Use frequent, low-stakes testing
Optimal T3 Stress The sweet spot of learning. Know Thyself: Optimal performance is relative
Performance

T6 Challenge and Threat It's a moving target: Adjust on the fly. Flexibility based on (current) student needs
Relevant T11 Learning is Not Linear There is a natural hierarchy and learning
Curriculum T13 Learning is Developmental and Experiential trajectory for each subject. Apply neuroconstructivist design of curriculum
T13 Learning is Developmental and Experiential
T20 Relevant and Meaningful Contexts The more you know the more you can know. Habituate transdisciplinary thinking
Differentiation P1 Uniqueness
and Student T20 Relevant and Meaningful Contexts There are many paths to Rome. Let students drive the curriculum
Autonomy
The person who does the work
T20 Relevant and Meaningful Contexts is the person who does the learning. Use authentic learning
Social T9 Social Interaction People can and do affect each other's
Contagion T20 Relevant and Meaningful Contexts emotional states. Prioritize small-group work

T7 Faces There is no cognition without emotion. Teach emotion and empathy through facial cues
Prioritize social emotional learning
T8 Voice over content memorization. Read emotional cues from voices
Strong We know ourselves better by knowing
Learning
T12 Conscious and Unconscious Processes "the other." Leverage Theory of Mind
Community
1+1=3: Collaboration yields more Collaborate as learners
T9 Social Interaction than individual efforts. Collaborate as teachers
T9 Social Interactions
T20 Relevant and Meaningful Contexts Share to build community. Share
Online Disinhibition Effect:
T10 Attention The protection of anonymity. Cold call by name in video conference
Personalization T2 Emotions and Cognition A person's self-perception as a learner is shaped
T6 Challenge and Threat by teachers and influences learning outcomes. Show you care

T9 Social Interaction You can't teach students if you don't know them. Listen
Communication The brain can't let it go (communication immediacy
P6 Attention Systems & Memory Systems smooths the flow of learning processes). Get in synch
T4 Anxiety Communication regularity lowers anxiety
T10 Attention and cognitive load. Be predictable

Source: Author
8 Bringing the Neuroscience of Learning to Online Teaching

The conditions and pedagogies of g­ reat teaching
are mediated by the princi­ples and tenets of Mind,
Brain, and Education (see T­ ables 1.1 and 1.2). As a con-
sequence of the condition, its related princi­ple(s) or
tenet(s), and the applied pedagogy, ­there are other ben-
eficial non–­content-­ learning outcomes (­ Table 1.3),
which can be considered “mantras” in teacher practice.
­These refrains guide ­great teaching, in­de­pen­dent of
student age level or subject. The alignment of t­hese
ele­ments can be seen in ­Table 1.3.
We now turn to 40 pedagogies supported by
princi­ples or tenets in Mind, Brain, and Education sci-
ence that can be used successfully both online and in
face-­to-­face teaching.
 CHAPTER 2
Connecting Teaching and Learning Goals to
Neuroscience: 40 Evidence-Informed Pedagogies
In this chapter we look at learning goals and how they
are supported by findings from neuroscience and can
be actuated with specific pedagogies.
GOAL: MASTERY LEARNING
Mastery learning, according to Bloom’s original idea
(1968), is based on the “90–90” formula. Students
should “master” 90% of the content before they move
ahead to harder learning. This means t­ here is no social
promotion, and rather than grade levels t­here are
mastery milestones. ­Today, this natu­ral trajectory of
learning concepts is called neuroconstructivism (Sirois
et al., 2008). Similar to psy­chol­ogy and education’s
constructivism promoted by Piaget (Piaget & Papert,
1967), Vygotsky (1978a) and ­ others (e.g., Bruner,
1960), in which the learner builds on prior knowledge
to scaffold understanding in the context of what is al-
ready known, neuroconstructivism uses the neural
networks of the brain to do the same. Learning is more
efficient when presented in this instinctive order
(Clements & Sarama, 2014). ­Great teachers re­spect
that students must have firm foundations on which
they construct more and more complex knowledge,
and that skipping any of ­these basic concepts ­will lead
to gaps that ­will cause prob­lems in ­future learning
(Windschitl & Stroupe, 2017).
The second “90” in mastery learning points out that
90%+ students in any given classroom are able to learn,
if given enough time (Bloom, 1968). This means that
the current dependence on timed tests goes contrary to
ideal learning. Timed tests for learning w ­ ere the pri-
mary tool for evaluation in the United States between
the 1960s and 2020. In 1965, the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act made standardized testing a
requirement in public schools. This was followed by No
Child Left B­ ehind (2001), which tied funding of schools
to test scores, further aligning the entire country around
timed tests. Along with federal funding, university re-
quirements w ­ ere one of the main barriers that K–12
9
institutions had for defending standardized tests (Kirst
& Venezia, 2001). Timed tests ­were put into question in
2020, and in an unanticipated twist, the pandemic
helped tip the balance ­toward their rejection for univer-
sity entrance, signaling what my hope is the beginning
of a return to mastery goals (Charmatz, 2020).
Mastery learning is based in part on Princi­ple 1:
Uniqueness. ­ Human variance and variability is real
(e.g., Sauce & Matzel, 2013) and should influence the
ways students and teachers interact with learning
goals (Tomlinson, 2001). One-­size-­fits-­all instructional
practices are no longer necessarily the norm as the
mastery design of learning means more personalized
instruction can be achieved, which is facilitated by on-
line classroom design. Mastery learning is also the so-
lution to the prob­lem caused by many inequities made
vis­i­ble by the pandemic. If “mastery” w­ ere to replace
“standardized testing,” then more students would find
success in school.
Some People Can Do Steps. Everyone Can Do
Ramps. Build Ramps.
Dif­fer­ent students w
­ ill need to start at dif­fer­ent entry
points as they begin their journey ­toward the objec-
tives. This parallels architecture’s basic rule of universal
design: While just some ­people can use steps, every­one
can use ramps (Zhang et al., 2020). Therefore, the smart
way to plan is to prioritize ramps over steps, allowing
for a more differentiated progression of learning, rather
than lockstep advances. While steps (standardized goals
based on the state curriculum) might seem more eco­
nom­ical, they restrict access to many users. Mastery
learning is based on the understanding that most ­people
can climb to meet expectations if given enough time to
fill in any gaps in prerequisite knowledge.
Pedagogy: Universal Design for Learning
Universal Design for Learning was first promoted in
the 1950s as an accessibility tool in the design of
10 Bringing the Neuroscience of Learning to Online Teaching
physical objects and spaces for ­people with special
needs. It was capitalized on in the 1980s by Ron Mace,
an architect and designer who was confined to a
wheelchair for life. He experienced the strug­gles of
­people with dif­fer­ent needs firsthand and dedicated
his life to design that would not discriminate. The
UDL thinking in education was pop­u­lar­ized by Anne
Meyer and David Rose in the CAST program in the
late 1990s and takes advantages of evidence from the
learning sciences to design experiences that promote
differentiation.
In Universal Design for Learning: Practical Applications
(2012), authors Hall and colleagues share examples
from writing, math, science, the arts, history, and
other subject areas to show that the basic planning for
UDL pedagogy is consistent, in­de­pen­dent of the topic.
To prepare for UDL implementation, the authors rec-
ommend teachers look beyond the minimum goal of
the standards they are used to using as guides, and to
think more about mastery learning. UDL motivates
the designers of educational experiences to approach
their task believing all users’ needs can be met if the
right instructional pedagogies are chosen.
In 2006, the United States created the National
Taskforce on Universal Design for Learning that in-
cluded most major U.S. educational bodies such as the
National Education Association and the American
Federation of Teachers, as well as many groups that
advocate for students who d ­ on’t fit the cookie-­cutter
description of “average.” This has made UDL one of
the principal pushbacks to “standards-­based” educa-
tion and standardized tests. The premise of this peda-
gogy is that p­ eople can learn if the system meets their
needs; “barriers to learning are not, in fact, inherent in
the capacities of the learners, but instead arise in learn-
ers’ interactions with inflexible educational materials
and methods,” (Rose & Meyer, 2002, p. vi). ­ Great
teachers design classes with multiple entry points to
the topic so that every­one gets what they need. This
does not mean lowering or changing the objectives,
just offering options to the starting point.
­Great teachers know their students well enough
to adapt to individual needs. This means understand-
ing what gaps they might have in prerequisite knowl-
edge that would prevent them from reaching the
mastery goals laid out for the class. A spectrum of
learner needs is developed by identifying the lowest
common denominator shared by all the students and
crossing it with the broadest needs of the highfliers.
This spectrum assures every­one has an appropriate
entry point to start their journey ­toward learning ob-
jectives. One way to implement UDL is by construct-
ing bundles.
Same Objectives, Different Processes
Pedagogy: Bundles to Differentiate Entry Points
to the Material
To reach the same objective, dif­fer­ent ­people need dif­
fer­ent ­things at dif­fer­ent stages of the learning pro­cess.
Bundles are mini-­libraries of videos, articles, websites,
apps, games, podcasts, or other digital and analog tools
that are curated for each topic in place of a textbook.
­These can be stored within the classroom LMS, be hy-
perlinked into a Google Doc, or even simply shared
with students via a Word document through email.
Many ­great teachers co-­construct their bundles with
students. This enhances motivation, takes advantage
of student knowledge, and broadens the scope of of-
ferings while saving the teacher time.
­Great teachers know that bundles offer several ad-
vantages over physical textbooks or other traditional
school resources. First and foremost, they offer stu-
dents more choice. Second, they are ­free. Third, ­because
they do not cost, t­here can be a wider variety of re-
source choices given to students. The greatest benefit
of bundles, however, is their multiple entry points to the
same topic, which means ­ every student can begin
where they are, not where the curriculum says they
should be. By starting where they feel comfortable,
students can scaffold their own knowledge through
bundle content.
Bundles are constructed using three par­ameters.
First, teachers need to think about the range of learn-
ers in their classrooms. How high are the highfliers, and
how low are the kids with special needs? Second, teachers
need to decide the kinds of tools they want to offer
based on the course objectives. Should the bundle be
made up of digital resources, or a mix of pen-­and-­paper ana-
log tools as well as online activities? And third, teachers
need to decide on how they ­will use the bundles. ­Will
they be for asynchronous or synchronous learning, or both?
In the past, teachers spent a good deal of time gather-
ing up physical supplies in preparation for school;
today, teachers need to use their research skills to
­
gather options in online contexts.
Some teachers create a bundle per topic and ask
students to review at least one of the resources before
coming to the live class. As each student learns about
one or more perspectives in depth before coming to
class, the group benefits by hearing multiple perspec-
tives, which is far superior to the single answers gener-
ated from a textbook view. An unexpected benefit of
offering students choice is that they often do more
work. ­Because choosing the “right” resource means a
review of all of the resources, it is inevitable that
 Connecting Teaching and Learning Goals to Neuroscience: 40 Evidence-Informed Pedagogies 11
students review more than the minimum require-
ments as they sift through the options. Given the
chance to choose, their curiosity is piqued, and b ­ ecause
they are curious, students tend to go deeper. The au-
tonomy brought on by choice is a key driver in learn-
ing (Domen et al., 2020).
­Great teachers intuitively created bundles for their
struggling and gifted learners even before the pan-
demic. Expanding bundle access to all learners creates a
kind of one-­stop shopping for multiple resources. This
reduces the stigma of d ­ oing “remedial”-­level work or
“gifted” work and shares a spectrum of choices so stu-
dents can approach the topic from any entry point they
wish. This is differentiation at its best: giving all students
dif­fer­ent ways to achieve the same learning objective.
Some w ­ ill need to fill in gaps in prerequisite knowledge;
­others already know the basics and want to be stretched
beyond the standards. Both groups can be served by the
same bundle. If resources are selected correctly, bundles
make every­one in class feel t­ here is something just right
for them and can be used from 1st grade on up.
Treating Everyone Fairly Does Not Mean Treating
Them the Same
Mastery is embedded in the saying that treating every­
one fairly does not mean treating them the same (Nash
& Schlösser, 2015). One way to achieve mastery is by
designing learning options so p ­ eople get what they
need. Teachers know from experience that dif­fer­ent
­people need dif­fer­ent t­hings at dif­fer­ent times in the
learning pro­cess. To make this point further, it is clear
from science of learning research that an individual’s
chronological age is far less impor­tant than his or her
prior experiences in determining learning outcomes
(Tokuhama-­Espinosa, 2014). This suggests that it is
not fair to ask “all 4-­year-­olds” to have identical prelit-
eracy (or art, or science or math) competencies ­because
some have had rich early childhood experiences that
prime them for learning, and ­others have not (Jimenez
et al., 2016). Additionally, in a class of 4-­year-­olds,
­there are kids who have just turned four and ­others
nearly five. Variance also explains why a person might
be “smart” in one part of math (or art, or physical abil-
ities, or science) and not another, or be “on top of it”
one day and “below average” another. Each person’s
unique brain reacts in context and does so based on
prior experience, emotional states, and a host of addi-
tional ­factors that increase or lower the potential for
learning in a given setting. To leverage this informa-
tion, teachers can adopt pedagogies that celebrate the
differences between learners. For example, teachers
can differentiate homework.
Pedagogy: Differentiated Homework
While differentiation is a well-­known concept in in-
struction, this word is not regularly associated with
evaluation. ­Great teachers know how to leverage the
differentiation of homework to its fullest potential, es-
pecially in online contexts. Given the number of both
digital and analog resources available to teachers
today, it is no longer necessary to choose a single
­
homework assignment for all the kids in the classroom
(“every­one do questions #1–10 at the end of the chap-
ter”), but rather teachers can use what they know
about their individual students to address specific
needs using dif­fer­ent resources in their bundles.
For example, a good 4th-­ grade teacher who is
working on reading skills w ­ ill quickly see that dif­fer­
ent kids in her classroom need dif­fer­ent ­things to reach
the learning objectives. She might realize that John
needs to become a more fluid reader, which would re-
quire practice and rehearsal reading aloud. She also
realizes another student, Ana, needs to build up her
vocabulary as she pronounces the words correctly, but
hesitates ­because she does not know the meaning of
what she is reading. Thanks to the flexibility of the
virtual classroom and the variety of digital educational
resources available, the teacher can assign ­these two
students dif­fer­ent homework. She tells John to rec­ord
himself reading some sentences out loud to get a base-
line of time, and then she asks him to try and shorten
the read-­aloud time for the same sentences by 10%,
then 20%, and so on, u ­ ntil his reading fluidity is on
par with the rest of the group. Ana, on the other hand,
is asked to play a game to build up word recognition
and vocabulary. She is asked to play the game ­until
she can quickly recognize 90% or more of the vocabu-
lary being used in the reading assignment. If the
teacher takes the time to differentiate in this way,
­every kid gets what they need, not a generic assign-
ment that might not serve ­either of them.
Learning Can and Should Be Measured in Terms of
Product, Process, and Progress
Mastery is based on MBE’s Princi­ ple 4: Constant
Changes. The brain is constantly interacting with its
environment, which in turn changes its structure and
the way f­uture interactions occur. This dynamic pro­
cess means that the brain is always learning and teach-
ing itself based on its experiences (Zelazo, 2015). To
track ­these constant changes, teachers need to move
beyond summative evaluations and take into consid-
eration a broader range of competencies that show
how a student approaches prob­lem solving (pro­cess),
12 Bringing the Neuroscience of Learning to Online Teaching
and just how far a student has come since previous at-
tempts (pro­gress). Mastery learning also values prod-
uct, pro­cesses, and pro­gress equally. The online
environment provides many new tools to do this. For
example, to make the final product vis­i­ble, the pro­cess
transparent, and the pro­gress evident, teachers and
their schools can institute the use of long-­term docu-
mentation through e-­portfolios.
Pedagogy: E-­portfolios
An electronic portfolio, or e-­portfolio, is a chronological
collection of learning artifacts that are gathered over
time, which can be arranged by date, subject, or proj­
ect type (Amaya et al., 2013). Most LMSs have e-­
portfolios embedded in their structure, and ­there are
dozens of ­free formats available online. Many teachers
have created their own versions of e-­portfolios simply
using Google Drive or other shared repositories. The
best e-­portfolios are ­those or­ga­nized by institutions,
however, in which all teachers can share information
about all students to ensure all pos­si­ble learning arti-
facts are valued in order to visualize the learner as a
­whole.
E-­portfolios ­today include a broader range of evi-
dence than was previously available in face-­to-­face
settings due to the physical limitations of the past.
They also carry over from grade to grade and teacher
to teacher throughout the student’s entire academic
­career. The wider range, quantity, and span of arti-
facts permit a much better view of what a student
knows, is able to do, and values. E-­portfolios also re-
flect highs and lows in student learning pro­cesses and
often offer insight into the student’s personal life.
Unlike traditional portfolios that are e­ither thrown
out at the end of the year or are stored in a garage or
basement, e-­ portfolios are living documents that
show the accumulative development of a person over
time. Imagine seeing the first scribbles of a budding
artist, being able to track his development and explo-
ration with themes and mediums over time, and the
final pre­sen­ta­tion of work submitted for entrance into
college. E-­portfolios are a mini-­documentary of a per-
son’s life as a learner.
Whereas it was once acceptable to use a multiple-­
choice timed test to determine if a student went to col-
lege or not, universities are now demanding more
sophisticated bodies of evidence. Similarly, whereas
parents of younger ­children ­were once content with
receiving a report card at the end of a term, they are
now more involved than ever in tracking their child’s
pro­gress. The K–12 e-­portfolio permits us to have a
longitudinal view of what a student has learned over
her entire preschool-­, primary-­, and secondary-­level
experience, and if maintained throughout college and
work life, becomes a digital calling card far more de-
tailed and telling than a cover letter or resume (Smith,
2018).
One of the greatest benefits of the e-­portfolios is
that more ­people can share in the learner’s develop-
ment. When used as talking points with students,
­e-­portfolios serve as a wonderful teaching tool to mo-
tivate learners. Most students have a hard time seeing
their own pro­gress especially when they are in the
­middle of a task; the e-­portfolio makes this vis­i­ble.
When used with parents, e-­portfolios are a strong doc-
umentation of milestones in development. Many par-
ents question how good their child is in comparison to
­others or the “norm.” They do so b ­ ecause they cannot
easily track development compared with the child,
him-­or herself. The e-­ portfolio allows parents the
ability to see a kid’s personal milestones t­oward mas-
tery, as mea­ sured against himself, not just ­ others.
When used with other teachers, the e-­ portfolio
strengthens the likelihood of aligned curricular goals.
A teacher from one grade can now see where an indi-
vidual child or a group of c­ hildren left off before she
starts to teach, permitting a smoother transition be-
tween grade levels.
Sharing e-­portfolio content can extend to external
actors in the event the student needs to transfer to a
new school system or apply to college. Some digital
resources, such as the Mastery Transcript Consortium
or the 3D-­transcript model in which viewers see the
regular transcript on the surface level, the syllabus for
each course at the secondary level, and the artifacts
produced by students for each learning competency at
a third level, are now gaining popularity and extend
the use of e-­portfolio structures (Martin, 2019).
Pedagogy: Rubrics with Product, Pro­cess, and
Pro­gress Mea­sures
Another way to value not only products but also pro­
cesses and pro­ gress in learning is by using rubrics
(­Table 2.1). Rubrics designed in this way point ­toward
mastery learning goals, celebrate advances, and iden-
tify specific areas for improvement.
The key to the successful use of ­these rubrics is in
the elaborated description ­ under each criterion. A
clear description supports the precise feedback offered
on the student’s work by teachers, and improves the
likelihood students ­will improve in the f­ uture (Price &
O’Donovan, 2006). A sample PPP rubric from a high
school writing assignment I made can be found in
­Table  2.2.
 Table 2.1. Sample Rubric with Product, Process, Progress
Criteria 4 3 2 1
A Product (description) (description) (description) (description)
Process (description) (description) (description) (description)
Progress (description) (description) (description) (description)
B Product (description) (description) (description) (description)
Process (description) (description) (description) (description)
Progress (description) (description) (description) (description)
C Product (description) (description) (description) (description)
Process (description) (description) (description) (description)
Progress (description) (description) (description) (description)
D Product (description) (description) (description) (description)
Process (description) (description) (description) (description)
Progress (description) (description) (description) (description)
E Product (description) (description) (description) (description)
Process (description) (description) (description) (description)
Progress (description) (description) (description) (description)
Total
Source: Author, inspired by Guskey & Bailey, 2010

Table 2.2. Product, Process, Progress Rubric for a 9th-Grade Writing Assignment

4 3 2 1
Criteria Advanced Proficient Developing Emerging
Organization Product Organizational Organizational Some inconsistent Little or no
structure is easy to structure is good but attempts at an organization
follow. Appropriate not always easy to organizational evident.
use of headers and follow. Some structure that often
subheaders to create appropriate use of result in confusion for
an intuitive format headers and the reader.
throughout the subheaders to create
paper. an intuitive format.
Process Excellent use of Good use of worked Adequate use of No evidence of any
worked models and models and some worked models or use of the worked
resources. resources. some resources. model or resources.
Progress Excellent progress Good progress over A small amount of Little or no
over prior work. prior work. Some progress is evident. progress over
Continued growth is growth is evident. earlier work.
evident.
Introductory Product Persuasive and Somewhat persuasive Unengaging and Unengaging or
paragraph engaging writing with and engaging writing. nonpersuasive nonexistent.
a clear focus. Some idea of the focus opening. Unclear what
apparent. the focus is.
Process Excellent use of Good use of worked Adequate use of No evidence of any
worked examples and examples and some worked examples or use of the worked
resources. resources. some resources. example and/or
resources.
(continued)

13
Table 2.2. (continued)
4 3 2 1
Criteria Advanced Proficient Developing Emerging
Progress Excellent progress Good progress over A small amount of Little or no
over prior work. prior work. Some progress is evident. progress over
Continued growth is growth is evident. earlier work.
evident.
Supporting Product Used examples from Used examples from Used an example from Did not cite any
details multiple sources to two or more sources to one source and/or did evidence to support
(paragraphs support premise. support premise and/ not cite references ideas.
2, 3, 4) Correctly cited work. or cited sources but correctly.
incorrectly.
Pro­cess Excellent research Good research skills. Emerging research No research
skills. skills. conducted.
Progress Excellent progress Good progress over A small amount of Little or no
over prior work. prior work. Some progress is evident. progress over
Continued growth is growth is evident. earlier work.
evident.
Grammar Product Virtually no spelling, Few spelling and Numerous spelling, So many errors
Usage and punctuation, or punctuation errors and punctuation, and that the meaning of
Mechanics grammatical errors. minor grammatical grammatical errors ideas and concepts
mistakes. throughout the paper. are hard to
understand.
Pro­cess Used all resources Used one or more Unsuccessfully used Did not spell check
available to spell resources available to one or more resources or use any
check, review spell check, review available to spell check, resources to review
punctuation, and punctuation, and review punctuation, punctuation or
grammatical errors, grammatical errors, and/or grammatical grammar.
including digital and including digital and errors, including digital
analog tools. analog tools. and analog tools.
Progress Excellent progress Good progress over A small amount of Little or no
over prior work. prior work. Some progress is evident. progress over
Continued growth is growth is evident. earlier work.
evident.
Vocabulary Product Sophisticated language Precise language and Complete sentences Poor word choice
(Word and appropriately varied word choice. but rudimentary and limited
choice) complex vocabulary. sentence variety and vocabulary.
word choice.
Pro­cess Deep, appropriate, Reliance on one or Mis- or overuse of No attempt to use
sophisticated more tools to identify thesaurus leading to resources to
vocabulary. appropriate word inappropriate choices. improve the
choice. language of the
paper.
Progress Excellent progress Good progress over A small amount of Little or no
over prior work. prior work. Some progress is evident. progress over
Continued growth is growth is evident. earlier work.
evident.
Total
Source: Author

14
 Connecting Teaching and Learning Goals to Neuroscience: 40 Evidence-Informed Pedagogies 15
Rubrics facilitate feedback and are best used in
combination with oral or written feedback to be most
effective (Nordrum et al., 2013).
Frequent, Explicit, Formative Evaluation Serves
Both Student and Teacher
Mastery learning is also based on Princi­ple 4: Constant
Changes. ­Every contact with the outside world stimu-
lates changes in the brain’s neural networks. ­These
micro-­level changes at the level of synapses in the
brain’s neural networks are indistinguishable to the na-
ked eye. This means that changes in vis­i­ble be­hav­ior—­
like the demonstration of a new skill, for example—­rely
first on changes at the molecular level, which are invis-
ible. To make thinking more vis­i­ble and to help learners
feel they have progressed even if they have not yet
reached their final product goal, great teachers can em-
ploy frequent, explicit, and formative evaluation pro­
cesses (Buelin et al., 2019).
Pedagogy: Frequent, Formative Evaluation
Feedback should be frequent, b ­ ecause the brain con-
stantly seeks confirmation; explicit b ­ecause concrete
ideas are easier to learn from than indirect or subtly
expressed ones; and formative b ­ ecause learning is an
ongoing pro­ cess and in constant construction. As
mentioned ­earlier in the product-­process-­progress ru-
bric, evaluation relies on all three “Ps.” Formative
evaluation mea­sures improvements in the pro­cesses of
each individual’s pro­gress ­toward the development of
the expected product or competency. Continuous eval-
uation and feedback corrects, directs, and/or re­orients
student efforts to achieve learning objectives with
more accuracy. Formative evaluation takes advantage
of our brain’s ability to improve, adapt, and restruc-
ture in response to error detection and new experi-
ences (Dehaene, 2014). In neuroscience this is called
neuroplasticity, and it is the physical manifestation of all
learning in the brain. Formative evaluation not only
should be from teacher to student, but also should be
welcomed from student to student or from the stu-
dents to the teacher. Some tools achieve multiple types
of evaluation.
For example, teachers can ask students to submit
an “exit ticket” as they leave the class in which they
write down what they think the main ideas of the class
­were (Whitney & Nave, 2020). This not only checks
student understanding, it also helps teachers see if the
majority of the class shares the same vision of the class
time as was planned. If all the students coincide with
the teacher’s planning, g­ reat! If not, then the teacher
is given a clear indicator of what ideas or concepts
need reinforcing in the next class.
Formative assessment can also be given or re-
quested explic­itly. ­Great teachers model the ability to
accept constructive criticism, and in d ­ oing so, help
their students understand correct norms as well as the
management of emotions that often come with evalu-
ation. A ­great teacher might tell her class, “Like you, I
want to continue learning. What can I do better in the
­future?” ­After hearing out the students, the teacher
can model an ideal reaction and say something like, “I
want to thank you for pointing that out. I d ­ idn’t real-
ize that this was something that made you feel [sad]
[angry] [motivated], and I ­will work on [never] ­doing
that again. Next time, I ­will. . . .”
What Can I Do Better the Next Time?
Mastery learning is also based on Princi­ple 5:
Neuroplasticity. All learning creates changes in neural
structures of the brain (Princi­ple 4: Constant Changes),
and ­these new connections in turn potentiate the pos-
sibility of continued learning into the f­uture. This
means that the brain cannot help but learn, and the
more one knows, the more one can know, thanks to
increasing connections (Pedretti et al., 2017). To fa-
cilitate learning in school settings, teachers can help
habituate a positive reaction to evaluation. An ex-
ample of a positive way of looking at m ­ istakes is to
“feedforward.”
Pedagogy: Feedforward
Many ­people know about feedback, but the concept of
feedforward might be new to most as we coined it dur-
ing the pandemic. Feedforward simply asks the learner
to reflect on what he could do better the next time.
This takes the emphasis off of lamenting the past and
focuses learners on the ­future. This deceptively ­simple
pro­cess is easy to conceive but harder to communicate.
In written feedback, teachers must learn to rephrase
the way they share their evaluations. For example,
rather than saying, “I liked the examples, but wish
­there had been more of them,” the teacher might say,
“I ­really think your use of examples brings the ideas to
life. How could you include more?” All evaluation has
the potential of becoming a feedforward activity,
which are even more numerous in the online envi-
ronments than in face-­to-­face settings due to the sheer
number of tools available. Repeatedly thinking “What
can I do better [differently] the next time?” becomes
part of a student’s inner voice and as such, can change
attitudes about self-­perceptions as a learner.
16 Bringing the Neuroscience of Learning to Online Teaching
We now turn from the condition of mastery learn-
ing to the goal of deeper learning.
GOAL: DEEPER LEARNING
Deeper learning seeks transfer of school learning into
real-­world contexts (Dede, 2014). It also relies on
evidence-­informed decisions in education (Rothman,
2018) and depends on elevating higher-­order thinking
by changing learning dispositions (McTighe & Silver,
2020). The global pandemic created the opportunity to
rethink education at the most profound levels as ­every
aspect of the teaching–­learning dynamic was exam-
ined ­under a microscope, elevating the importance of
deeper learning.
As mentioned in the introduction and as w ­ ill be
discussed more fully in Chapter 3, backward design
can guide this new thinking about deeper learning
goals. Many teachers find it more logical to plan a
course based on clear objectives, appropriate mea­sur­
ing tools, and well-­designed learning events as com-
pared with the traditional goals of prioritizing test
scores. According to backward design, objectives must
align with evaluation and activities. If the objective is
deeper learning, then evaluation tools need to be more
complex than multiple-­choice tests. It can be argued
that deeper learning activities are even more accessi-
ble in online contexts due to the increased number of
tools to evaluate and teach (Shouman & Momdjian,
2019). This means that teachers can identify and meet
a broader range of student needs.
Deeper learning depends in part on Tenet 21:
Novelty and Patterns. The brain is constantly compar-
ing its surroundings with what it already knows and
uses memory systems to predict what ­ will happen
(Bar, 2009). In ancient times, this memory-­based pre-
diction was mainly for survival; now it is used primar-
ily for learning, including the learning that takes place
in schools. The brain looks for patterns of t­ hings it has
in memory; ­things that are dif­fer­ent stand out as being
novel. This quick sorting of information into “known
and unknown” or “pattern and novelty” is useful as
the brain looks for something to hook the new learn-
ing onto. It takes less energy to pro­cess something
known than something unknown (Leppink, 2017)
(see Figure 2.1).
The brain’s use of novelties and patterns supports
the suggestion that teachers should stimulate prior
knowledge for ideas and concepts as they introduce
new information (Tobias, 1994). Novelty and patterns
are also the basis for the brain’s shortcuts or heuristics,
which ­we’ll explore shortly. For now, the main idea is
that the brain relies heavi­ly on what it already knows
in order to pro­cess new information: What you al-
ready know influences what you can know. Deeper
learning is, in part, based on the comparative, iterative
exchanges of new information with memories in order
to develop ever more profound understandings.
Start with the End in Mind
Our minds detect patterns based on prior experiences
(Tenet 21). As all new learning passes through the fil-
ter of prior experiences (Princi­ple 3), patterns help
students maneuver online expectations. G ­ reat teach-
ers start with the end in mind and confirm learners
know the class objectives, how their achievement w ­ ill
be mea­sured, and what activities they are expected to
complete. Sharing content knowledge objectives
through pre-­class videos is one way to create a useful
and predictable classroom structure. This is called flip-
ping the classroom.
Pedagogy: Flipping the Classroom
Flipping is one of the simplest yet most impacting
changes to take place in education in de­cades. When
executed correctly (when students watch the prere-
corded videos), flipping improves learning at all grade
levels (e.g., Fisher et al., 2018; van Alten et al., 2019).
A flipped classroom is one in which a teacher decides
what is impor­tant knowledge and off-­loads it onto a pre-­
class video for viewing before students come to the live
class. This gives students the time to carefully watch
(and rewatch if necessary) core concepts and theories
of the class before applying the skills in the synchro-
nous class. Prerecording lessons is a wonderful way to
ensure that every­one receives the same message and
can calmly think through the ideas in their own time.
Many teachers field questions about the pre-­class video
in written form before the live class (through discus-
sion boards, reflections, and feedback sheets, among
other activities), in order to prepare the synchronous
meeting around the students’ queries and concerns.
Flipping achieves two impor­tant steps in the edu-
cational pro­cess. First, it gives both students and teach-
ers time to reflect and clarify. Second, flipping f­ rees up
time to apply and use ideas in the synchronous class
for collaborative work, personalization of content,
small-­group discussion, and most of all, clarifications.
By off-­loading some or all of the content that needs to
be memorized before it can be used, flipping means
the typical lecture is the “homework,” while rehearsal
and use of the learned ideas and concepts is the “in
class” work. This gives students the time to reflect on
 Connecting Teaching and Learning Goals to Neuroscience: 40 Evidence-Informed Pedagogies 17
the ideas, meaning they come to class with better and
deeper questions. Flipping also provides a safety net of
sorts for anyone who might miss a class for any rea-
son. Flipping also documents the core knowledge that
must be dominated, making the path t­oward mastery
more vis­i­ble.
Flipping as a pedagogical strategy is one of the
most effective learning devices an online teacher can
employ (Bond, 2020), as my students ­will attest. Each
year we receive feedback from students saying that all
educational experiences should be flipped. Flipping is
complemented by other deeper learning ideas, such as
the brain’s need for dif­fer­ent types of thinking pro­
cesses, including the need to mind wander.
Mind Wandering Is Not a Waste of Time
Deeper learning also relies on Tenet 12: Conscious and
Unconscious Pro­cesses. Not all learning is obvious and
transparent or vis­i­ble. ­There are many ­things ­humans
learn that are unconsciously acquired such as cultural
norms (Hall, 1989), one’s first language (McLaughlin,
1990), and how to walk (Goodway et al., 2019), sug-
gesting that learning through conscious, explicit class-
room structures is only one of many ways ­people learn
on a spectrum of awareness. Some thinking pro­cesses
are more obvious than o ­ thers. When a child’s brow
furrows and he looks confused or pensive, we immedi-
ately think he is thinking. However, when a child’s
mind wanders, we often say he is “distracted,” despite
the fact that mind wandering is one of more than a
dozen thinking states and equally valuable when prob­
lem solving (Tokuhama-­Espinosa et al., in review).
Another impor­ tant thinking stage is reflection.
Reflection is a conscious state of mind in which ­there is
focused attention (Tomita et al., 2020). This is in stark
contrast with mind wandering, which employs distinct
neural networks (Lorentz, 2020). In a lit­er­a­ture review
of over 1,000 articles on thinking and writing, we iden-
tified 15 dif­fer­ent stages of thinking, all of which cor-
relate to distinct neural networks, and t­here may be
even more (Tokuhama-­Espinosa et al., in review). All
of ­these dif­fer­ent networks play an impor­tant role in
the thinking pro­cess, and each stage of thinking is stim-
ulated by dif­fer­ent classroom activities.
We now know that a g­ reat deal of creative insight
comes from just letting your mind wander and freely
connect ideas, rather than forcing specific thinking
tasks that require a product or output in a set period of
time (Fox & Christoff, 2018). ­After long bouts of con-
centration and focus, it is often a g­ reat idea to stand up,
walk the dog, cut vegetables, weed the garden, or even
take a nap. ­Great teachers know that prob­lem solving
in t­ hese moments of daydreaming, or unfocused think-
ing, is more common than one would think, and far
less valued in formal education than it should be. This
is particularly impor­tant to remember in online con-
texts in which students may be asked to be in a single
mode of thinking for far longer than their brains can
pay attention (Vissenberg & d’Haenens, 2020).
It is impor­tant to celebrate all stages of thinking.
­There should be space for focused attention, time for
reflection, and space for mind wandering baked into
the course’s instructional design. Focused attention of-
ten occurs in the synchronous class, mind wandering
occurs whenever the student wants, but reflection
time needs space to be created for it during school time
as this is not something many students do on their
own. Reflection is best integrated into the synchro-
nous meetings with students.
Pedagogy: Reflection
Reflection papers at the end of e­ very synchronous class
are a good way to track the evolution of thinking over
time. One way to do this is through a 3-2-1 reflection
paper at the end of the class. This exercise, as men-
tioned in the introduction, asks student to identify three
­things they learned, two that they want to know more
about, and one way the new learning might change
how they learn or live. It uses focused attention to pin-
point how and what the student knows about that day’s
learning, and synthesizes thinking pro­cesses.
Reflection time has an enormous impact on learn-
ing (Boud et al., 2013), and the best teachers know its
intrinsic value and try to make time for it within the
school day. However, many teachers feel ­there is con-
stant time pressure to “cover” curriculum in a short
school day, reducing time for reflection. Reflection pa-
pers at the end of ­every class are a good investment of
time as they force students to go back, look, and or­ga­
nize their notes into categories of new learning, in­ter­
est­ing ideas, and pos­si­ble ways to apply the information
and change current be­hav­ior. Reflection papers ask
students to think, What does that information ­ really
mean? What did I ­really learn ­today? What am I now curi-
ous about? What w ­ ill this change? Rather than scramble
to the finish line of each class, teachers can tell stu-
dents that it’s okay to just be quiet for a few minutes
and put every­thing into perspective.
Reflection papers can also serve as a fantastic review
of a topic. Teachers can lay out each student’s 3-2-1s
alongside their corresponding class topic and make the
class’s accumulative group knowledge vis­ i­
ble. The
teacher asks students to first look at what they wrote,
and then consider what their classmates wrote about
18 Bringing the Neuroscience of Learning to Online Teaching
the same topic. Fi­nally, the teacher can invite students
to learn from one another and add to their own reflec-
tions using the ideas of o­ thers. Group reflections are a
low-­stress way to accumulatively assess learning.
The Brain Adapts to What It Does Most
As mentioned throughout, a dictum in Mind, Brain,
and Education science is that “the brain adapts to what
it does most.” The more exposure the brain has to a
concept or skill, the easier it is to habituate that concept
or skill (Gross, 2020). Deep learning also depends in
part on Princi­ ple 3: Prior Experience; Princi­ple 6:
Memory and Attention; and Tenet 12: Conscious and
Unconscious Pro­cesses. Memories are fragile and de-
pend on reinforcement for survival. If something is con-
stantly rehearsed, however, the memory is consolidated
and is easily retrieved as something known. To predict,
the brain remembers, and it remembers to predict
(Hutchinson & Barrett, 2019). In order to save energy
and learn quickly, the brain reviews new information
and compares it with what is already in memory. If
something is already known, the brain can spend less
energy understanding it (Shenhav et al., 2017); if it is
unknown, then the brain needs to exert energy to learn
about the new knowledge (Van Kesteren et al., 2012).
Most of this pro­cessing occurs at an unconscious level.
­There are at least three impor­tant pedagogies related to
expectations: Leverage culture, expect the best from
students, and eliminate bias. A fourth pedagogy, inter-
leaving, will also be explained in more detail at the end
of this section.
Pedagogy: Leverage Culture
Deeper learning is facilitated by perspective taking
from dif­ fer­
ent cultures (Kitayama & Park, 2010).
­Every person’s brain develops, grows, and learns in
cultural contexts. Dif­fer­ent cultures expect dif­fer­ent
things of students and teachers, parents and kids,
­ how it learns, as well as misunderstandings about who
schools and homes. P ­ eople’s brains also learn to un-
derstand expectations based on habituated be­hav­iors,
including customs, which are experienced over time
(Kitayama & Uskul, 2011). Culture shapes what we
eat and when we sleep, what roles we think p ­ eople
should have based on their gender, as well as how the
young and old should interact, and which professions
have high or low status. ­Because culture is something
very subtly ingrained into our being, it is hard to be
aware of its influence on the expectations we have of
ourselves or o­ thers (Zou et al., 2009).
“We know ourselves better by knowing the other,”
is an idea from Theory of Mind, which suggests that
our own self-­perception is modified by the p ­ eople we
come in contact with. For anyone who has traveled
abroad, it is clear we become aware of our home cul-
ture by the contrasts we note with the new culture
(Sussman, 2000). The ­human brain is always compar-
ing itself with ­others in order to define and understand
itself. ­Great teachers know how both to understand
the cultural influences on student be­ hav­ ior—­that
Kenji ­won’t look the teacher in the eye out of defer-
ence, not out of shame—­and to celebrate the variety
of perspectives that comes from a classroom full of
­people with dif­fer­ent backgrounds. Culturally respon-
sive teaching is a pedagogical approach that leverages
dif­fer­ent students’ backgrounds and values to help the
entire class take on new perspectives (Gay, 2018).
Pedagogy: Hold High Expectations
A second pedagogical approach that responds to the
idea that “the brain adapts to what it does most” is
that students and their brains live up or down to the
expectations placed on them (Rosenthal, 2010).
Expert teachers are very conscious of how they inter-
act with students as they know expectations, high and
low, are transmitted both explic­itly and implicitly, and
through all levels and types of communication (Dee &
Gershenson, 2017). A teacher’s silently transmitted
expectations (“I w ­ on’t call on you b ­ ecause I d­ on’t
think you have the right answer,”) can have just as
strong of an impact on student learning as a loud, di-
rect exchange (“Johnny, y ­ou’re a smart boy, why
­don’t you tell us the answer.”). All h ­ umans have un-
conscious biases, which develop based on context and
life experiences (Rosenthal, 2002). Many of ­these bi-
ases (e.g., “girls a­ ren’t good at science”; “Asians are
good at math”; “old p ­ eople c­ an’t learn technology”)
are transmitted through subtle, often unconscious
exchanges.
Neuromyths—­ false beliefs about the brain and
can learn and how they do so—­are often at the roots
of unconscious bias (Tokuhama-­ Espinosa, 2019c).
Unconscious biases apply to o ­ thers, but they also apply
to oneself. Self-­expectations have a strong influence
on learning (Marsh et al., 2018).
What a student thinks of his own ability to learn is
influenced in large degree by what the student thinks
the teacher thinks of him (Rubie-­Davies, 2006). If the
student senses “the teacher thinks I can do it, so I guess
I can,” he performs better than if the student senses
“the teacher hates me and thinks I’m stupid, so I w ­ on’t
even try.” Perceived expectations, even if they are not
true, influence the ability to learn (Figure 2.1).
 Connecting Teaching and Learning Goals to Neuroscience: 40 Evidence-Informed Pedagogies 19

Figure 2.1. ​The Perseverance of Neuromyths Due to Bias

Instructor (unconsciously) “Some people are naturally

good at science and
I am (not) one of them”

Student’s
Instructional
epistemological
practices
beliefs

Neuromyths Student’s
Instructor’s can cause harm self-
“Boys have better brains for beliefs at every stage of the perception Girl: “I am (not) good at science”
science than girls, I see this teaching learning as a learner Boy: “I am good at science”
all the time in my class” process

Student
Instructor’s
learning
outcomes

“I am (not) a good teacher” Success and failure

based on gender

© Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2019

Figure 2.1 explains this cycle. A teacher may be-
lieve that a specific ethnic, cognitive, or gender-­
oriented group may perform in a par­tic­u­lar way. This
belief shapes the teacher’s attitudes t­oward students
(conscious or not), and in turn, elicits reactions from
them, which consequently trigger new reactions from
the teacher. T­ hese exchanges often reinforce student
beliefs about themselves as learners (“I am smart, I can
learn; “I am not smart, I c­ an’t learn”), leading to a vi-
cious cycle that confirms ­those same beliefs. Teachers
can break this cycle at any stage of the relationship by
simply nudging students ­toward a positive belief in
their ability to learn and encouraging a growth
mindset.
Expectations are not always low, nor are they al-
ways negative. The famous Pygmalion effect study
(Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968) showed that if a teacher
expects ­great ­things from students, they perform well.
This is not magic, but rather due to be­ hav­iors the
teacher is not even aware of. For example, if a teacher
is told a student of his is gifted, he believes the student
is capable of learning. B ­ ecause he believes she is ca-
pable, he may also give her a few more seconds to an-
swer than he would do so normally, or he may even
offer encouragement and hints. The teacher may not
even be aware he is d ­ oing this, but it is actually this
unconscious prodding that permits the student to
achieve as it changes the student’s self-­perception as a
learner. This gives us pause to won­der what kinds of
success rates we would find in our classrooms if they
­were only filled with teachers who transmitted their
positive beliefs in their students’ abilities to learn.
Unfortunately, some students get the feeling that their
teachers do not think they can learn, and therefore
­don’t even try (Boaler et al., 2000). ­Humans live up or
down to the expectations placed on them, and student
learning outcomes are influenced most by their per-
ception of teacher beliefs (Rubie-­Davies et al., 2006).
20 Bringing the Neuroscience of Learning to Online Teaching
Figure 2.2. ​Quick Decisionmaking in the Brain: The Origins of Bias
The brain adapts to what it does most, and this
influences the voice in our heads that repeatedly tells
us if we are on the right track, or the wrong one; if we
are learners, or incapable of learning; if we are smart,
or not; if we are good students, or bad. When you re-
peatedly hear that you are “good” [sharp] [intelligent]
[quick] or “bad” [lazy] [dumb] [slow], this becomes
part of your inner voice and changes your self-­
perception. Your own self-­perception as a learner in-
fluences learning outcomes. Learners’ achievements
are influenced by their self-­ perception (Perrone-­
Bertolotti et al., 2014), and their self-­perceptions are
influenced by their teachers (Rubie-­ Davies et al.,
2006). Self-­perception is developed over time and is
part of a person’s heuristics, and the shortcuts we de-
velop in our thinking (Gehlbach & Vriesema, 2019).
Pedagogy: Use Heuristics, Expose Bias
A third pedagogical approach is to accept that the brain
is a predicting machine. To save energy (cognitive
load), it w
­ ill latch onto patterns of be­hav­iors or to ob-
servations so it ­ doesn’t have to review e­very new
learning ele­ment from scratch. This means what we
already know heavi­ly influences what we can poten-
tially know or learn. ­These shortcuts to quick decisions
are known as “heuristics” (Battersby, 2016). The brain
creates ­these decision-­making shortcuts based on re-
peated experiences.
The brain makes thousands of decisions in a day.
Some are very mundane (“Do I put on the black socks
or the blue one?”), and ­others are life changing (“Do I
ask her to marry me?”; “Do I accept the job offer across
country?”). Yet other decisions are about learning. The
brain has to decide if it w ­ ill invest energy in learning
something new, or to save energy by presuming the
new ­thing is related to something already known.
Many readers w ­ ill have heard of the idea of “think-
ing fast” and “thinking slow” originally conceived by
Tversky and Kahneman in 1974, and made popu­lar by
the latter author’s book in 2011. Fast versus slow think-
ing is precisely the difference between the brain’s
 Connecting Teaching and Learning Goals to Neuroscience: 40 Evidence-Informed Pedagogies 21
reliance on heuristics and its calmer, longer pro­cess of
deciding to learn something new. Figure 2.2 explains
this decision to invest energy in learning as the way the
brain is also subject to biases, or prejudiced thoughts
about ideas, p­ eople, or concepts. The quicker-­thinking
path does not always take in new information. In fact,
it is primed to skip over what looks similar and jump to
conclusions based on past experiences. The fast-­
thinking pro­cess takes only a split second to occur but
has several steps, and the slow-­thinking pro­cess is only
slightly longer, but involves twice as many stages.
Additionally, bias against anything “dif­ fer­
ent” is
actually baked into the way the brain perceives the
world. To err on the side of caution, the brain treats
novelty and anomalies as threats; anything out of the
ordinary is considered a big red flag. This is the biologi-
cal origin of bias; it is better to be sorry and scared just
in case, rather than to ignore a threat and regret it ­later.
The brain’s first instinct to be wary of differences is
natu­ral (Hudson et al., 2020). This base instinct can be
overcome, however, if we habituate reactions on a
higher level of thinking that includes ethical be­hav­ior.
Unfortunately, ethics are not instinctual, so this kind of
thinking takes more energy to achieve (Greene, 2016).
As explained in Figure 2.2, ­humans perceive their
world through their senses. It is in that first moment of
perception that the first heuristics kick in, which, as in
all heuristics, is based on habituated life experiences.
From the start, the brain’s “go-to” place is to use energy
sparingly and only on ­things that ­will bring gain or for
which it is already motivated. What happens more of-
ten than not is that the signal takes the low-­energy
route, and responds to the sensory perception purely
on heuristics, or the shortcuts developed over the years
(Volz et al., 2010). If, however, the information is
worth expending energy on to learn, the brain invests
in memory and attention systems. Cognitive load is
mea­sured in the energy it takes to keep t­ hings in mind
in working memory, and to remain focused on the task
at hand (Korbach et al., 2018). If the attention and
memory are sufficient, thinking, and eventually learn-
ing, can occur. However, even this new learning is sub-
ject to new biases and can be changed by the preexisting
heuristics, or even create new heuristics.
All new learning passes through the filter of prior
experience (Princi­ple 3). This means that the habitu-
ated be­hav­iors we learn throughout our upbringing
(culture), including the rehearsal we do with students
to shape knowledge, skills, and attitudes (maintain
high expectations), make a difference. The way we
learn to learn is also related to adaptation based on
what we do most. P ­ eople devise often complex be­hav­
iors and rituals to enhance the probability of their own
learning (Damisch et al., 2010). One of the best peda-
gogies to strengthen memory systems is interleaving.
Pedagogy: Interleaving
Interleaving is a pro­cess of reinforcing learning durabil-
ity by returning to topics multiple times rather than
exhaust all information in a single block of time. The
main difference between interleaving and a traditional
class is in the purposeful return and construction of
concepts over time to treat it in depth and in multiple
contexts (Birnbaum et al., 2013). Examples of inter-
leaving are more easily found in elementary school
where subjects are naturally intertwined and often
taught by the same teacher than in high school where
subjects like En­ glish, science, and math are usually
blocked into 40–90-­minute periods and each is taught
by dif­fer­ent teachers. Rather than chunk learning into
blocks of time, interleaving returns to topics and core
ideas within the subjects repeatedly over time.
An example of interleaving could be to first intro-
duce a math formula in a 7th-­grade pre-­algebra course.
The teacher begins by defining terms and by sharing
the formula and some examples at a conceptual level.
She then leaves the conceptual discussion aside. In a
perfect world, she would switch to another topic, per-
haps bridging the math formula to history with the
Romans, or to New Age m ­ usic, or sports. Or she might
even explic­ itly announce a mindfulness meditation
break, or let the students out for lunch. Then, in a few
hours, or days or even weeks, the teacher returns to
the math formula in more depth and through broader
contexts. Then the teacher leaves the explicit instruc-
tion of the formula to the side again, and bridges into
a new discussion about Picasso’s art, positive psy­chol­
ogy, Shakespearean lit­er­a­ture, infectious diseases, al-
ternative forms of energy, or any other natu­ ral
transition. Then, in another few hours, or days or
weeks, the teacher returns to math and has the kids
resolve a real-­ life prob­ lem using the formula in a
deeper context. And so on. This means that rather
than teach “every­thing” about the prob­lem at once,
the brain gets more bite-­sized exposures, which it then
has time to pro­cess. By returning to the concept over
time, students see the information in continually deeper
contexts, consolidate their understanding, and rein-
force memory pathways over time.
The challenge in interleaving is that the transi-
tions from topic to topic and subject to subject have to
make sense in a curriculum of their own. This is where
the use of problem-­or project-­based learning can be
of ­great help. Transdisciplinary learning makes inter-
leaving a natu­ral pro­cess. Project-­or problem-­based
22 Bringing the Neuroscience of Learning to Online Teaching
Figure 2.3. ​Concentrated Practice vs. Interleaving
Subject 1 Subject 2
Subject 2
Subject 3
Subject 4
Subject 4
Subject 5
Subject 1
Source: Author.
learning, which emphasizes dif­fer­ent subject areas at
dif­
fer­
ent moments in a proj­ ect’s development inter-
leave effortlessly (Kogtikov et al., 2016). An excellent
example of this is the International Baccalaureate’s cap-
stone proj­ects or final extended essays, in which stu-
dents conduct interdisciplinary research, often creatively
mixing and matching findings from history, math, art,
and science in a single body of knowledge. Interleaving
works b ­ ecause of the neural pathways that are rein-
forced over time. Memories for the concept are then
linked to multiple contexts, enhancing the probability
of recall in the f­uture (Parisi et al., 2019).
In an American Federation of Teachers publication
on Interleaving in Math (2020), Agarwal and Agostinelli
summarize the research on interleaving and found
studies showed the superiority of interleaving over
a concentrated teach-­ it-­
and-­move-on approach. In
one study of 4th-­graders, they found that ­after one
month, test per­for­mance for the interleaved group was
“almost double compared with per­ for­
mance for the
blocked group” (Agarwal & Agostinello, 2020, para. 18).
This means that interleaving serves long-­term recall,
retrieval, and application better than blocked class
design.
Interleaving depends on “spaced versus massed
practice”: It is better to space learning over time than
to lump it all together (Carpenter, 2014). Memory
pathways for the concept are better enforced with
spacing than through massification. If given a certain
number of hours per semester to reach a learning goal,
teachers can spread out the learning over the entire
semester, not group all of the hours together at once.
Rather than intensely studying the topic for a few
days, a learner’s memory would be better served by
teaching a few minutes e­ very day for longer periods of
time. This facilitates more successful learning than
massified “intense” programs that often produce good
Subject 3 Subject 4 Subject 5 Subject 6
Subject 6
Subject 2
Subject 3
Subject 4
Subject 4
Subject 5
Subject 6
Subject 1
Subject 1
short-­term results, but poor transfer ability of skills
over time (Richland et al., 2005).
While the interleaving specifics above would be
more easily done in contained elementary classrooms
or in a one-­room school­house where one teacher cov-
ers all topics for all students, interleaving can actually
be used by all teachers; if they revisit what has been
taught over time, circle back regularly, and relate new
learning to known concepts in a planned way, stu-
dents learn better. Interleaving is facilitated in online
contexts, especially in flipped courses, where the tra-
jectory of learning is vis­i­ble to all. The more complex
the concept being learned, the longer amounts of time
between reinforcement learning are needed (Brunmair
& Richter, 2019; Kang, 2016). That is, a small child
learning to count may only need a few hours between
learning moments, but a student learning calculus
may benefit from several days before reinforcement
learning. Interleaving has the added benefit of helping
kids feel success around multiple albeit small triumphs,
something key for motivation.
Success Begets Success
Deeper learning is supported in part by Tenet 6:
Challenge and Threat. ­Humans love a good challenge,
but dislike it when that challenge becomes threaten-
ing, or unmanageable. Deeper learning is also grounded
in Princi­ple 2: Dif­fer­ent Potentials. Dif­fer­ent ­people
have dif­fer­ent potentials for learning dif­fer­ent subjects.
As a student’s self-­ perception as a learner impacts
learning outcomes (Rayner, 2001), one way to get to
deeper learning is by helping students find success
­every day. As the brain adapts to what it does most, it’s
easy to imagine how small daily successes can posi-
tively impact learning outcomes. In­de­pen­dent of how
well or poorly a student is achieving in class, hearing
 Connecting Teaching and Learning Goals to Neuroscience: 40 Evidence-Informed Pedagogies 23
words of encouragement from the teacher goes a long
way to motivate further learning (Alcott, 2017).
Pedagogy: Help Students Find Success ­Every Day
Success begets success. Failure begets failure. Teachers
are the source of both experiences for students.
Millions of teachers became students again during
the pandemic. I had the honor of working with hun-
dreds as they moved online, and I repeatedly saw similar
sharp learning curves as they switched from being the
single class leader to one of many learners. Being stu-
dents again reminded teachers of what it feels like:
Sometimes ­there was joy at new discoveries, and other
times ­there was panic, or worry about being unpre-
pared. In some of the worst-­case scenarios, teachers ad-
mitted experiencing negative self-­talk that drove them
into a cloud of rumination when they felt the learning
was beyond their abilities. One of the biggest revelations
for teachers when they ­were students was to realize that
their own students experienced the same range of emo-
tions, but they did so daily, in multiple classes, over the
entire school year. This created a power­ful sense of em-
pathy, which in turn improved their teaching.
Research tells us that if too many failures occur in
a row, the learner begins to give up, and many may
even stop trying (Martin, 2010). But even a small win
can turn the tide. When you hear your name called
out in the live Zoom class and you are publicly con-
gratulated on your particularly good discussion board
post, ­great reflection paper, or smart contribution, or
when your peers share with ­others that you sparked a
­great idea in the small collaborative session, you feel
like a superhero. Teachers become keenly aware of the
importance of regular, albeit small, wins to speed up
the teaching–­learning cycle.
Prioritizing ­mental health has a potentially ­great
impact on academic learning outcomes (Agnafors
et al., 2020). Students’ social–­ emotional states—­
feeling positive or negative about their potential to
learn in a given context—­can be the difference be-
tween ­whether they actually learn or not (Yakimova
et al., 2020). Teachers improve learning potential by
communicating their beliefs in their students’ abilities.
Another way to improve the likelihood of learning is
to explic­itly teach metacognitive skills.
It Is Harder to Ask a Good Question Than to
Answer One
Deeper thinking is also dependent on Tenet 20:
Relevant and Meaningful Contexts. Related to deeper
learning is the ability to self-­question (Gourgey, 2001),
and self-­questioning skills are born of good modeling by
teachers to students (Buehl, 2007). Teachers who ask
good questions have students who learn to ask good
questions. The m ­ ental pro­cesses involved in conjuring
up the right question word (who, what, when, where,
why, how), with sufficient details, using appropriate vo-
cabulary, and placed in the right context is more com-
plicated than answering the same question. Rothstein
and Santana pop­u­lar­ized the idea that perhaps one of
the most impor­tant ­things we can do as teachers is to
get students to ask more questions. In their book Make
Just One Change: Teach Students to Ask Their Own Questions
(2011), the authors explain why we need to explic­itly
and implicitly teach questioning techniques in order for
this to become habituated be­hav­ior.
Pedagogy: Questioning
It is harder to formulate than to answer a good ques-
tion. ­There are many ways to start a question, and
some require deeper thinking than ­others. For exam-
ple, who, what, when, and where questions are “closed”
because they usually have a single correct answer,
­
whereas how and why questions are “open” b ­ ecause
they invite a variety of often more complex ideas and
­there is no single correct answer.
Getting students to ask their own questions can
benefit the group as well as the individual. Since the
person who does the work is the person who does
the learning, when a teacher decides to give a test,
students should be asked to think about what they
think the teacher will ask on the test, and then be
invited to submit those questions. The teacher can
send homework to identify the main topics and write
at least one [three] [four] [ten] great questions based
on the targeted content. Teachers further motivate
students by offering incentives if student questions
are used on the test. Getting students to ask their
own questions works because in order to come up
with a good question, students will have to research
the topic thoroughly—as much or more than they
would do if just studying for the test. Similarly,
teachers can use the same structure for crossword
puzzles, which are even slightly harder to structure as
they have to be laid out and concepts spelled
correctly. This is a time-saver for teachers because a
successful submission can be judged quickly: If
another student is able to read, understand, and
respond by filling out the crossword puzzle, then the
student has successfully completed the assignment.
24 Bringing the Neuroscience of Learning to Online Teaching
Pedagogy: Socratic Method
Another way to use questioning is through the
Socratic method, or Socratic questioning, the oldest
teaching method still in use ­today (Abou-­Hanna et al.,
2021). Socratic method use basically means never to
say what you can ask. The main goal? To slowly guide
learners ­toward their own areas of ignorance. Socrates
believed in the midwife meta­ phor of learning:
Students have all of the answers inside of them; teach-
ers just need to give a push in the right direction
(Dypedokk Johnsen, 2019). Teachers are the mid-
wives of learning.
In the Socratic method, the teacher develops a hy-
pothesis about the student’s misunderstanding or
­mistake. She then uses this hypothesis to formulate a
question that brings the student closer to understand-
ing where he went wrong. Rather than point out the
error directly, asking questions can bring students
closer to understanding their own m ­ istakes. For ex-
ample, if the math teacher hypothesizes that the stu-
dent’s error was in forgetting the order of operations
(PEMDAS: “Please [parenthesis] Excuse [exponents]
My [multiplication] Dear [division] Aunt [addition]
Sally [subtraction]”), rather than point this out explic­
itly, she can ask the student, “Was your prob­lem be-
fore or a­ fter you worked the parenthesis?” This is far
more effective than saying, “you forgot the negative
sign before the parenthesis,” as the inquiry and self-­
questioning force the student to search and reinforce
memory networks for that knowledge.
The Socratic method develops deeper thinking by
habituating ­ mental conversational exchanges based
on questions, which students can then rely on in the
­future as they in­de­pen­dently resolve prob­lems using
metacognitive strategies. Over time, this becomes a
habituated internal dialogue. With practice, Socratic
thinking patterns can eventually be used without an
external prompt, leading to metacognitive awareness.
GOAL: METACOGNITIVE AWARENESS
Metacognition depends in part on Tenet 20: Relevant
and Meaningful Contexts. Au­then­tic contexts speed
up learning, primarily ­because relevancy is linked to
motivation (Dabrowski et al., 2018), motivation is
linked to time-­on-­task (Peetz et al., 2020), and time-­
on-­task relates to rehearsal (Kovanović et al., 2015).
One of the most impor­tant au­then­tic learning experi-
ences is the development of thinking skills. Thinking
about thinking, or metacognition, is habituated reflec-
tion on m
­ ental pro­cesses.
Metacognitive awareness is the ability to know
yourself and how you learn best, and includes habitu-
ated self-­ question of cognitive pro­ cesses (Chapman
et al., 2020). This higher-­order thinking develops over
the lifetime with guidance. The brain cannot help but
learn; it is the brain’s natu­ral state to gather and use
information about its surroundings in order to survive
(Crick, 1979). Despite this natu­ral state of learning,
the brain cannot reach metacognitive awareness with-
out guidance (D’Mello & Rozenkrantz, 2020). That is,
learning might be the natu­ral state of the brain, but
higher-­order thinking requires tutelage.
It is natu­ral to hear c­ hildren ask many questions
about how they think. How do I learn? Why are some
­things harder than ­others? What makes my brain work?
Why do some ­people remember ­things better than me? Can I
become smarter? But as they grow older, they question
less and less. Howard-­Jones suggests that by the time
­children reach around 9 years of age, they ­settle their
“theory of brain” and resign themselves to a pattern of
learning, without a single bit of evidence that how
they think they learn is ­really how they do learn (per-
sonal conversation, June 2018). In a 2020 study on
“What Do Kids Want to Know About Their Own
Brains?” we found that 9-­year-­olds and adults ask sur-
prisingly similar questions (Tokuhama-­Espinosa et al.,
in review). This might be due in part to the fact that
few ­people are ever taught about how their brains ac-
tually learn. A ­ fter a while, p ­ eople just stop asking.
Many teachers can begin to satisfy this curiosity by ex-
plaining, using, and exemplifying metacognitive
awareness skills.
Learning How to Learn
Metacognitive development is a lifelong goal. That is,
­people never completely master it as t­ here are always
more ­ things to know about how you know your
world. Metacognitive awareness is based in part on
Tenet 18: Use It or Lose It. P
­ eople make new neuronal
connections ­every day as they learn, but if ­these net-
works are not continually rehearsed, they can be lost.
On the flip side of “use it or lose it” is another dic-
tum in Mind, Brain, and Education science, which is
that “the more you know, the more you can know.”
This is based in part on the physical structure of syn-
apses: Each new connection potentiates additional
ones, so the more connections made grows exponen-
tially larger over time and experience (Shanthamallu
et al., 2019). This means that the more we learn about
ourselves, our world, and the ways we think about the
thinking ­behind that learning, the more we w ­ ill be
able to learn in the ­ future. Teachers can foster
 Connecting Teaching and Learning Goals to Neuroscience: 40 Evidence-Informed Pedagogies 25
metacognitive awareness through Socratic question-
ing, as mentioned above, but they can also habituate
self-­
questioning about personal thinking pro­cesses.
One way to do this is through the Metacognitive
Awareness Inventory.
Pedagogy: Metacognitive Awareness Inventory
Teachers play a vital role in shaping the thinking abili-
ties of their students both in online settings and in
face-­to-­face classrooms. Metacognitive awareness im-
proves learning potential (Kleitman & Narciss, 2019).
Some teachers use the Junior Metacognitive
Awareness Inventory (Schraw & Dennison, 1994) to
explicitly call attention to thinking processes and
challenge students to refine those skills. Statements
like “I am a good judge of how well I understand
something” and “I try and use strategies that have
worked in the past” help children evaluate their
thinking and develop plans of how to improve in
the future. There are several studies that document
the efficiency of improving metacognitive skills
using the inventory to measure knowledge and
regulation of cognition (e.g., Baker, 2013; Kim et al.,
2017). If used over time, the inventory proves an
excellent way to habituate reflection about thinking.
Teachers’ feedback can become the inner “voice” in
students’ heads and foster the metacognitive
dialogue in their subconscious.
Self-Regulation Is More Important Than Innate
Intelligence
Metacognitive awareness is developed in part thanks
to emotional regulation. The ability to self-­ regulate
plays an impor­tant role in developing metacognitive
skills. As ­there is no cognition without emotion, meta-
cognition is based in part on Tenet 2: Emotions and
Cognition.
Executive functions (EFs) can be broken down into
three key skills, according to Adele Diamond, a devel-
opmental cognitive neuroscientist: (a) cognitive flexi-
bility; (b) working memory; and (c) inhibitory control.
If ­those are achieved, then higher order EFs can occur:
(d) reasoning; (e) prob­lem solving; and (f) planning.
Executive functions are the key to not only academic
success, but also to life success. EFs can be learned, and
must be “continually challenged to see improvements”
(Diamond & Ling, 2016, p. 37), and if they are not,
“once practice ends, benefits diminish,” (2016, p. 37).
While all aspects of executive functions can be im-
proved with training, inhibitory control or self-­
regulation, which incorporates interference control,
response inhibition, and effortful control, plays a par-
ticularly impor­tant role in academic success. Moffitt’s
work (Moffitt et al., 2011; 2012), often cited in
Diamond (2012; 2013; 2014a; 2014b; 2014c; 2016)
and Diamond & Ling, 2016b; 2019), shows that self-­
regulation accounts for nearly twice as much as innate
intelligence in terms of academic outcomes. This
means that the ability to focus, buckle down, and keep
the eye on the prize is worth almost twice as much as
being born smart in terms of academic achievement.
This suggests that training executive functions as a
pedagogical approach is highly recommended.
Pedagogy: Executive Function Training
Training executive functions “are critical for success in
all life’s aspects and are sometimes more predictive
than even IQ or socioeconomic status” (Diamond &
Ling, 2016, p. 34). As a pedagogical approach, teachers
need to be aware that dif­fer­ent activities enhance dif­
fer­ent sub-­elements of EFs; some improve working
memory, ­others cognitive flexibility, and yet o ­ thers in-
hibitory control. No activity improves all EFs, with the
pos­ si­
ble exception of learning a foreign language
(Grundy, 2020).
In a rigorous review of the lit­er­a­ture, Diamond
and Ling found 84 studies on activities that improve
EFs in school-­aged ­children. They made some specific
recommendations about the best ways to improve EFs.
First, “gains depend on the amount of time spent prac-
ticing” (2016, p. 36), meaning both quantity and qual-
ity of practice is impor­tant.
Related to specific interventions, aerobic exercise
with a cognitive component, Taekwondo martial
arts, and working memory exercises were shown to
be effective in improving executive functions.
Having said that, EF improvement also depends on
“decreasing felt stress, providing a sense of
belonging or social inclusion, and/or improving
physical health” (2016, p. 41), meaning
interventions without self-care have little or no
impact. This means teachers should prioritize
social–emotional well-being and general health to
ensure EF interventions work.
Training EFs is particularly impor­
tant in online
contexts, and especially so during times of isolation,
26 Bringing the Neuroscience of Learning to Online Teaching
such as that experienced during the pandemic. EFs are
developed online by prioritizing social–­emotional learn-
ing. Both social–­emotional learning and self-­regulation
can be taught through the mediation of critical think-
ing (Arslan, 2018), emotional intelligence skills (Siregar
et al., 2018), mindfulness-­based practices (Goodman,
2019), and/or character education (Kress & Elias, 2019),
all of which can be developed equally well online
(Cazarez, 2020; Delen & Liew, 2016).
GOAL: GROWTH MINDSETS
Deeper learning is illusive without the right attitude.
The concept of growth mindsets was developed by
psychologist Carol Dweck at Stanford University and
has grown out of over 30 years of research about
­human motivation. Dweck suggests that p ­ eople’s im-
plicit theories of intelligence—­how ­people think they
are ­either smart or not smart—­fall on a continuum
that ranges from fixed to growth (2008). Fixed-­
mindset individuals believe that their intelligence is
inherited and cannot be changed. ­Those with a growth
mindset believe that intelligence is within their con-
trol and that they determine their own advances
through hard work. Dweck showed that having a
growth mindset improves learning outcomes (Wilson
& Conyers, 2020a). The right attitude can make all the
difference between success and failure.
Attitude Is Often More Important Than Aptitude
Just as self-­regulation carries more weight than innate
intelligence, attitude is often more impor­tant than ap-
titude. One way that attitude is expressed is through a
growth mindset. A growth mindset is the psychologi-
cal manifestation of Princi­ ple 5: Neuroplasticity.
­People can and do learn throughout the life span, and
the brain cannot avoid learning, meaning potential for
improvement always exists. This, coupled with Tenet
1: Motivation, supports the evidence for growth mind-
sets. Growth mindsets are impor­tant for all actors, not
only students, but teachers as well.
A test of good attitudes came at the start of the
pandemic and was expressed through resiliency.
Changing to an entirely new modality was an awe-
some task for teachers, students, and parents alike.
During the pandemic, many looked forward to a re-
turn to the comfort zone modality of face-­ to-­
face
learning (Rettie & Daniels, 2020). The rude awakening
came as society learned that the world would never be
the same again, and that the change in modality would
last longer than expected. It was at this point that
teachers seemed to divide in two, some clinging to the
hope of returning to the way t­hings ­were, and o ­ thers
who saw that ­every prob­lem could also be an opportu-
nity. The latter group became the early adaptors and
soon the leaders in their institutions; attitudes laid the
path for aptitude. Resiliency. Grit. Growth mindsets.
All of the best theories soon became everyday practice
in some schools. As a pedagogy, teachers can cultivate
the autonomy needed to approach online work with
the right attitude.
Pedagogy: Love What You Do or Learn from It
In their 40-­year research on Habits of Mind, Costa and
Kallick (2005) identify that one of the key 16 habits is
to approach the world with won­der and awe. Elmo, a
Sesame Street character, embodies this habit. His fa-
vorite word is “why,” and he expresses won­der and
awe at every­thing in his world. Every­thing, including
school topics, can be learned more efficiently and ef-
fectively with a positive attitude. As the brain adapts
to what it does most, ­great teachers know it is impor­
tant to realize that most attitudes are born of condi-
tioned responses to the world, which can be modeled
by teachers (Post et al., 2020). Students’ attitude forma-
tions ­will vary sharply if they hear their teacher say,
“Yeah, I hate math, too,” versus, “I love a good chal-
lenge! Math is sometimes challenging, but it feels so
good when you get the answer, d ­ oesn’t it?!” Teachers
can model the “won­der and awe” approach to learn-
ing, which w ­ ill lay the foundation for students’ own
adoption of this attitude.
Changing ­people’s attitudes is not easy, but simi-
lar to other interventions, much depends on habitu-
ated thinking. Repetition and modeling the use of the
idea “you love what you do or you learn from it (and
if you are lucky, you do both)” can improve the
chances of adopting a growth mindset. One way that
­people can habituate a mindset that approaches all
tasks with won­der and awe is through exposure to
this idea over many years in early life from parents,
teachers, and yes, even educational tele­vi­sion shows.
An example of how this can be applied in school
comes from grades. Grades are a part of academic life,
but ­there are many strong arguments against their
use as they can often detract from the goal of learn-
ing itself (Eury, 2020).
To get students to value the importance of the
learning and not just the grade, parents and
teachers can work on their own reactions to
 Connecting Teaching and Learning Goals to Neuroscience: 40 Evidence-Informed Pedagogies 27
evaluation. For example, rather than ask “How did
you do on the test?” ask “What did you learn?”
Many great parents and teachers tell their kids they
can study before the tests or after; it’s up to them!
And to nudge them in the right direction, they can
remind them that if they study beforehand, they
get the benefit of the grade as well as learning,
whereas if they study after getting the (bad) grade,
they will only get the learning. By moving the
emphasis off of the grade and onto the process, the
adults around the student can keep the focus on
the learning.
Other ­great parents and teachers explic­itly tell kids
that attitude ­matters. When kids complain about hav-
ing to learn something they feel is unnecessary, par-
ents can contagiously show their enthusiasm for the
topic (“Wow! You get to learn all of that new vocabu-
lary in En­glish?” You get to learn about the difference
between laws and policies? You get to memorize the
multiplication t­ables?!”). And if that ­ doesn’t work,
parents can help kids find time to reflect a bit more
philosophically: It’s a hard lesson to learn, but ­people
can ­either spend their lives being b
­ itter and frustrated
with the ­ things they ­ don’t like to do, or they can
change their attitudes and decide that every­thing is in­
ter­
est­
ing. This leads to the lessons from having a
growth mindset, including the idea that limits on
learning are self-­imposed.
Learning Limits Are Self-Imposed
The development of growth mindsets is due in part to
Princi­ ple 5: Neuroplasticity and Princi­ ple 3: Prior
Experience. Both concepts strongly support that learn-
ing limits are often self-­imposed. T ­ here is strong evi-
dence that ­ people who set their minds to ­ things
achieve them. Growth mindset research shows that
beliefs in one’s own ability to learn actually do influ-
ence learning itself due to intrinsic motivational ­factors
(Ng, 2018).
Many teachers who retrained in new skill sets
during the pandemic can offer testimony to their own
ability to learn, despite prior beliefs in neuromyths like
older p­ eople and tech ­don’t mix (Tomczyk et al., 2020).
­People can and do learn throughout the life span, and
during the pandemic, many teachers dispelled the
myth that ­there are age-­bound limitations to the abil-
ity to learn about and use technology. Lifelong learn-
ing was put in the spotlight during COVID-19 and
remains in focus ­today.
Pedagogy: Teach Lifelong Learning
One of the most famous proponents of lifelong learn-
ing was John Dewey, who is attributed with saying,
“Education is not preparation for life; education is life
itself.” ­Great teachers and their schools embrace the
21st-­century soft skill of lifelong learning and accept
that learning takes place beyond the classroom.
Lifelong learning is the ongoing, self-­motivated quest
for new knowledge (Dede & Richards, 2020). This in-
volves a belief that the brain can and does learn into
old age. It is also related to a philosophy that learning
is a never-­ending pro­cess, which reframes the way we
think about educational achievement. U ­ ntil recently,
schooling was l­imited to early childhood experiences
through around 18 years of age, and to around the
mid-20s if one went to college. The new view is that
education may start at birth, but that it ­will likely be
more like The 60-­Year Curriculum described in Dede
and Richards (2020), thanks in ­great part to the new
understanding that ­humans ­will always need to hone
their skill sets and continue their education through-
out their professional lives.
To promote lifelong learning, teachers can do
many ­things. First, they help students understand that
­mistakes and prob­lems are opportunities. Second, they
help students learn how to set and reach their own
learning goals. Third, they can model how ­people con-
tinue to learn throughout their lives. Fourth, to en-
courage lifelong learning, teachers can have their
students play with ideas and learn to love learning by
taking owner­ship of their own pro­cesses. Fi­nally, life-
long learning foundations are fortified by teachers
who empower students and give them the autonomy
to drive their own learning.
Achieving lifelong learning as a goal is less about a
specific skill set and more about an attitude (Roche,
2017). As with all attitudinal shifts, this can only take
place ­after a be­hav­ior becomes habituated, and this
takes time. Most school programs that support lifelong
learning try to develop ­these skills starting with the
youn­gest learners and continue over the entire aca-
demic ­career of the student. They also try to develop
learners holistically.
You Are More Than the Sum of Your Genes
and Zip Code
Growth mindsets are also based on Tenet 13: Learning
Is Developmental and Experiential. It is clear that learn-
ing occurs in developmental cognitive stages as pro-
claimed by psychologists Vygotsky (1978b) and Piaget
(2003). It is also clear that learning is experiential, as
28 Bringing the Neuroscience of Learning to Online Teaching
proclaimed by many cognitive neuroscientists and epi-
genesists (e.g., Sweatt, 2019). Combined, this reminds
us of the classic query: Are we who we are due to our na-
ture or to our nurture?
Pedagogy: Teach Risk and Protective ­Factors in
Brain Health
Sir Francis Galton (1869) was one of the first to debate
the role of biology, particularly of genes, as compared
with the environment and upbringing in determining
who we become as individuals. However, we no longer
say “nature vs. nurture,” as he intimated. The more
modern view is “nature via nurture plus ­free ­will.”
Students are who they are partially due to the genes
they inherited, partially due to the environment in
which they grow up, and partially due to their own life
choices. Research in cases of resiliency show that some
kids can inherit “bad” genes and be brought up in “bad”
neighborhoods, yet they still thrive and become “good”
smart kids. How? ­Free ­will (Gazzaniga, 2012). And of-
ten b­ ecause they choose to follow the advice of one
person who believes in them (Canada, 1998). They
choose to be better than their biology or zip code. A
power­ ful lesson that ­
great teachers communicate is
that you can choose who you decide to become and
what you do or do not learn. Intelligence is “fluid, not
fixed” (Tomlinson, 1999, p.18), and ­people can and do
learn throughout the life span (National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018).
Many ­great teachers have taken courses in “basic
brain health,” and realize that they have manageable
risk and protective ­factors in their lives that they can
influence. This is particularly impor­tant in online con-
texts where regular social interactions, physical exer-
cise patterns, and sleep have changed drastically
(Moser et al., 2020). Part of helping p ­ eople become
better learners means sharing every­ thing we know
about ­human learning, including ways to care for the
brains in our bodies. This includes a better under-
standing of how nutritional choices impact learning
(Deoni, 2018), the ways physical activity and exercise
can impact thinking (Herold et al., 2018), and the role
of sleep and dreaming on attention and memory sys-
tems (Maquet, 2001). In short, the person as a w ­ hole
and their general well-­ being impact learning out-
comes. ­Great teachers know how to help learners care
for themselves.
The Whole Is Greater Than the Sum of the Parts
Growth mindsets are also based on Tenet 14: Mind-­
Body Connection, in which the role of the ­whole is
given equal weight to the role of the many individual
parts. It is easy to focus on a single aspect of our minds
or bodies. ­Great teachers know that self-­care is never
composed of a single intervention, but rather needs to
be approached holistically (Stoewen, 2017). Some the-
ories of learning focus on ­mental well-­being (Conradson,
2016), o ­ thers on physical well-­being (Nielsen et al.,
2016), and ­others on cognitive conditions for optimal
learning (Kendeou et al., 2016). All of ­these explain a
part of what it means to be educated, but not all.
Learners are not just brains in bodies; they are beings
with emotions, past experiences, full or empty stom-
achs, married or divorced parents, and homes with or
without Internet. While all aspects of ­human learning
are impor­tant, none is more impor­tant than another if
our goal is to help ­every learner reach their potential.
­Great teachers know their students and their needs,
and they must attend to the ­whole. ­There are a myriad
of digital resources now available to help conduct
wellness checks (e.g., Edridge et al., 2020), remind us-
ers to exercise (Goodyear et al., 2019), apply sleep hy-
giene using apps (Grigsby-­Toussaint et al., 2017), and
improve nutritional intake (Samoggia & Riedel, 2020),
which many teachers at all grade levels share with
their students as a part of class (Vamos et al., 2020).
­These should be supervised, however, as a ­little knowl-
edge is often a dangerous ­thing (Honary et al., 2019).
Pedagogy: Educate the Whole Child
Educating the ­whole child on the macro level means
thinking about the many goals and purposes of educa-
tion. A “­whole” child objective might be as Noddings
(2005) suggests, to pursue happiness as well as to prize
health, be a good member of one’s f­amily and society,
have an ethical character, and show “command of the
fundamental pro­cesses” (2005, p. 8) of learning. As a
pedagogy, this means approaching learning through
actions, interventions, and curricula that prioritize the
well-­being of the individual and his or her place in
society.
On a micro level, educating the ­whole child means
understanding learner needs, socially, emotionally,
physically, and mentally as well as academically, as the
Waldorf model proposes (Easton, 1997). In addition to
expanding the facets of education, this also means that
education necessarily involves many more actors than
in the past. This became very clear during COVID-19 as
many schools moved to online instruction. During the
pandemic, many teachers had to teach not only
­children, but also their parents, how to work and inter-
act online (Bubb & Jones, 2020). Feeling healthy, safe,
engaged, supported, and challenged are also identified
 Connecting Teaching and Learning Goals to Neuroscience: 40 Evidence-Informed Pedagogies 29
by the ASCD Whole Child Initiative (ASCD, 2012), sug-
gesting that policy decisions should be prioritized by ini-
tiatives that address ­these areas. Educating the ­whole
child means keeping t­hese dif­ fer­
ent levels of the
“­whole” in mind. If this is successful, then students can
begin to experiment and even play with their learning.
GOAL: DARE TO ERR
Confident c­ hildren dare to err, and g­ reat teachers know
that permitting error is superior to cultivating an error-­
avoidance mentality when it comes to learning out-
comes (Metcalfe, 2017). At the heart of “dare to err” is
the belief that ­mistakes can help us learn. Some schools
of thought go so far as to say that the only way to learn
is by making m ­ istakes (Lyons, 2018), and ­others em-
brace the saying that m ­ istakes are learning opportuni-
ties (Curwin, 2014). To dare to err is based on Tenet 6:
Challenge and Threat and Tenet 1: Motivation.
To teach successfully, teachers have to be prepared
to let students make mistakes, and if possible,
celebrate these unsuccessful attempts as pathways
toward the right answer (Syed, 2015). Some
students feel ashamed when they are unable to
answer questions correctly, and rather than make
an educated guess, they clam up so as to avoid
ridicule from others. To change this, teachers can
encourage students’ attempts, and help make their
classrooms a safe space for intellectual speculation.
Teachers should send the message that it is better
to try unsuccessfully than to not try at all.
Anyone Who Can Learn from Their Mistakes
Should Be Given the Opportunity to Do So
Any person who can learn from their m ­ istakes should
be given the opportunity to do so. (I like to tell my
students that I ­don’t care how many ­mistakes they
make, they just better be dif­fer­ent each time!) But this
requires designing learning events in which it is pos­si­
ble to learn ­after students realize their ­mistakes, which
means more time for evaluation, feedback, as well as
resubmissions. In this sense, educational planning
takes a twist, which is facilitated by online LMSs.
Teachers can be guided not by arbitrary time incre-
ments for partial-­ grade submissions, as required by
some schools and districts, but rather by knowledge
that learning should be based on mastery goals with
ample opportunity for feedback and “do-­overs.”
Pedagogy: “Do-­Overs,” Second Chances, and Rewrites
Giving students the possibility to improve graded
work, or to do over an assignment, is a power­ful way
to improve learning outcomes; ­after all, many students
do not know how to do better ­until they see what they
did wrong. ­There is a significant effect size (.53) in
Hattie’s meta-­analysis of the lit­er­a­ture (Hattie & Zierer,
2019) that supports incorporating the pedagogy of giv-
ing students a second or third chance. This supports
the mentality to dare to err, which helps students be-
come comfortable with making ­mistakes along their
path ­toward learning (Clinton & Hattie, 2014). This
type of formative assessment celebrates a learning cy-
cle in which evaluation is used as a part of the teach-
ing pro­cess, not an end point. When a student is given
the opportunity to correct the work based on teacher
feedback, they begin to in­de­pen­dently learn to keep
an eye out for t­hose kinds of errors in the ­future, de-
veloping metacognitive awareness and staying moti-
vated in the pro­cess.
Mistakes Are a Natural Part of Learning
“Trial and error” is the primary way ­humans have
learned and evolved as a species (Whitehead & Ballard,
1991). It takes initiative to try, and perseverance to
experience error and correct it without quitting out of
discouragement. It is natu­ral, and even smart, to make
­mistakes, and even more natu­ral and even smarter to
learn from them. Encouraging a dare to err mentality
relies on Tenet 6: Memory. Without memory and/or
without attention, ­there is no learning. To learn from
­mistakes, a student has to remember what they did
wrong and how it was corrected in order to not repeat
the error.
Pedagogy: Frequent, Low-­Stakes Testing
There is good evidence that shows how frequent low-­
stakes testing is a ­ great way to enhance memory,
learning, and the likelihood of ­doing well in a class
(e.g., Sotola & Crede, 2020). As memory is vital for
learning, by extension, frequent quiz taking can con-
tribute to the learning pro­cess. As King (2018) alluded,
not only does this pedagogy save time, online educa-
tional outcomes may very well exceed ­those of the tra-
ditional classrooms.
Online can be better primarily due to digital
resources like self-corrected tests that can be
30 Bringing the Neuroscience of Learning to Online Teaching
leveraged to reinforce memory systems and
therefore learning with very low investment of
time by the teacher. Rather than use the quiz
score as a summative evaluation of the student,
teachers K–16 can use quizzes as a way to
PERFORMANCE
reinforce memory networks for vocabulary and
basic concepts for later application in class.
Frequent low-stakes tests are assessments that
have little impact on the student’s final grade, but
do a great deal to reinforce the neural networks
that are created in the brain to store information
(Miller, 2014). One way to integrate frequent,
low-stakes testing is to flip their use. For example,
students can take the quiz before they watch the
pre-class flipped video; take it after they’ve
watched the pre-class video; take it again after
they come to the live class; and once more after
they’ve done the discussion boards and explored
the bundles (mini-libraries). Their multiple
(improving) scores permit a clear vision of just
how far they come in their understanding of the
core module concepts.
Using this structure, we have found over the past
several years of research that the average student in
our class takes the weekly quiz four times, and they
tend to increase their points until they get about
100%. Teacher can design these self-graded quizzes so
that only the highest score is kept, which motivates
students to invest time into perfecting their scores.
Self-graded quizzes are a fantastic way to consolidate
knowledge.
GOAL: OPTIMAL PERFORMANCE
Related to the ability to dare to err is an individual’s
self-assessment about their own optimal performance
possibilities, which depends on Tenet 3: Stress.
Students experience many emotions as they learn,
and stress is often among them (Immordino-Yang,
2015). Contrary to popular belief, stress is not always
a bad thing when students are learning something
new. The brain works better and allows for more effi-
cient learning when presented with tasks that it per-
ceives as a challenge and not as a threat. Stress, like all
other emotions, is regulated by neurotransmitters
(chemicals) in the brain (Everly & Lating, 2019).
Things we find very easy can actually be boring, while
very difficult tasks can be overwhelming. This suggests
that a certain level of stress is necessary to learn
Figure 2.4. Yerkes Dodson Curve
Optimal
Performance
Eustress:
Energized
Boredom: Focused Distress:
Calm in the Flow Fatigue
Sleep Exhaustion
Burnout
LEVEL OF STRESS
Source: Author, based on Yerkes-Dodson, 1908
(eustress), but too much stress is harmful to perfor-
mance (distress) (Sies, 2019).
The optimal challenge level is different for each
student in the class: What stresses Mary does not stress
Tom, and what stresses Tom might not stress Michael.
When the optimal point of stress and challenge for the
brain is exceeded, the nervous system’s survival mech-
anisms are activated that inhibit cognitive functioning
(Vogel & Schwabe, 2016). Great coaches see this every
day. Just like teachers, they push their teams forward
to harder and harder tasks, but at some point, one of
the team members can’t manage the challenge, and
they fall into distress and consequently falter and per-
form poorly. Part of the art of the science of teaching is
keeping a finger on the pulse of the entire group,
when each individual member has a different optimal
performance point.
This was shown over a hundred years ago in the
Yerkes Dodson Law (Figure 2.5). This curve shows
that we all need a certain level of stress to stay alert
but that too much stress can impede learning. This
leads us to what I like to call the “Goldilocks” sweet
spot of learning.
The Sweet Spot of Learning
The Yerkes Dodson curve (1908) shows us that differ-
ent people will have different levels of comfort with
different types of interventions. Teachers have to try
and gauge just how far they can push each student as
they try to help the entire class advance at a similar
pace. This is easier said than done, as anyone who
has ever taught more than two students at a time can
attest. When teachers know their students well
enough to do this, they also help their students know
 Connecting Teaching and Learning Goals to Neuroscience: 40 Evidence-Informed Pedagogies 31
themselves better. This is one of the oldest recom-
mendations ever given: Know thyself.
Pedagogy: Know Thyself
“Know thyself,” was advice shared by the Oracle of
Delphi and echoed by the Greek phi­los­o­phers Plato
and Socrates nearly 3,000 years ago. This is often con-
sidered the ultimate lesson, which ­people are said to
seek sometimes for their entire lives: self-­knowledge.
Part of knowing oneself relates to understanding what
makes us feel the way we do, u ­ nder which conditions
we learn and thrive, and how to manage the balance
between emotions and cognition. Part of this balance
relates to knowing what stresses us.
When a person is highly stressed or anxious, they
physically cannot learn (Zoeram et al., 2019) due to
the combination of neurotransmitters that inhibit
neuroplasticity. Together, the learner and the teacher
have to identify that sweet spot where the learning is
not too easy and not too hard. Teachers can plan for
this by understanding that their well-­thought-­out les-
son plans w ­ ill likely need to be tweaked to adjust to
each student’s own sweet spots for learning. Identifying
a student’s “Goldilocks spot” can be deceptive ­because
external, vis­ib
­ le cues are not always telling of a per-
son’s internal state, which is why students themselves
should learn to self-­assess.
Teachers can help students know themselves bet-
ter by explic­itly asking reflective questions about their
learning pro­cesses; or, on an implicit level, teachers
can use the social integration provided by school set-
tings to helps kids see themselves in comparison with
“­others.” The more ­people students meet in school,
the better they get at understanding who they are
themselves. Optimal per­ for­
mance is enhanced by
knowing ourselves better, by leveraging the sweet spot
of stress-­
to-­achievement (Williams & Smith, 2018),
and when ­there is a clear trajectory t­oward learning
goals.
It’s a Moving Target: Adjust on the Fly
Optimal per­ for­mance is also defined by Tenet 6:
Challenge and Threat. Lesson plans and w ­ hole curri-
cula often need adjustment b ­ ecause of f­ actors external
to planning, which can be perceived as threating to
learners. Students get moody, friends fight, kids skip
breakfast, and p­ eople forget homework. Life happens.
The weather can close schools, pandemics emerge,
and el­derly relatives or after-­school jobs are given pri-
ority over homework. T ­ here are hundreds of t­hings
that can go wrong, and the best teachers know how to
adjust on the fly. Teachers have always bent to the ­will
of the group in classroom settings, and they are now
aided by technological tools that automatically adjust
learning algorithms in online contexts. This means
that teachers need to continue to tweak lessons on the
fly, but now they can be supported by new tools to do
this (more details in Chapter 4).
Pedagogy: Flexibility Based on (Current) Needs
While planning is impor­tant, being flexible can often
play an even greater role in determining who actually
learns. Adjusting to the needs of the group and keep-
ing the pulse on the class as a ­whole is one of the tell-
tale traits of top educators (Stronge, 2018), who know
how to expect the unexpected. Teachers know t­here
are hundreds of circumstances that can change their
daily plans, which can be divided into three main cat-
egories: student needs, school policies, and societal
shifts (see Figure 2.5).
­Mental flexibility is a key attribute of g­ reat teach-
ers (Karnieli, 2009). G ­ reat teachers know that some-
times their class lesson has to be put aside in f­avor of
students’ emotional needs, to increase their motiva-
tion or to adjust to a cognitive challenge. Other times
Figure 2.5. ​Why Teachers Need to Be Flexible
Emotional needs
Students Motivational needs
Cognitive challenges
Policy changes
Budget or Resource changes
School
Strikes
Fire alarms, Lock downs
Health (mental; pandemics; addiction)
Society Natural disasters (severe weather, earthquakes)
Uprisings (war, unrest, strikes, elections)
Source: Author
32 Bringing the Neuroscience of Learning to Online Teaching
teachers need to modify their plans due to a new
school policy, changes in resources, or emergencies
like strikes, fire alarms, or pandemics. Fi­nally, teachers
may need to change priorities when ­there are natu­ral
disasters, health-­care concerns, or social unrest.
­There is no cognition without emotion (Tenet 2).
Attending to students’ needs and responding to the
conditions in the world around the class are just as
much a part of ­great pedagogical practices as pivot-
ing to a new strategy when situations require them.
This can mean rethinking the school curriculum
altogether.
GOAL: RELEVANT CURRICULUM
The Natural Hierarchy and Learning Trajectory for
Each Subject
To reach optimal per­for­mance, a clear trajectory of
learning is vital. It is impor­tant for teachers to know
their subjects well enough to understand the natu­ral
hierarchy of subtopics within their field. For example,
mathe­matics can be broken down into addition, sub-
traction, multiplication, division, and so on. Each of
­these can be subdivided as well. For example, addition
requires knowledge of magnitude, a ­mental number
line, and non-­number symbols, like “+” and “=” among
other ­things. ­Every topic has fundamental knowledge
that needs to be learned before more complex ideas
can be constructed on them (Suh et al., 2019). The
idea of constructivism helps us imagine a h ­ ouse with a
firm base, which is then used to construct additional
floors and walls. Neuroconstructivism gives us a similar
image, but rather than a ­house, we are building a
brain. Relevant curriculum is contingent on Tenet 11:
Learning Is Not Linear and Tenet 13: Learning Is Both
Developmental and Experiential. When teachers think
about the natu­ral constructivist hierarchies that exist
in each subject area and use them to identify specific
gaps in students’ prerequisite knowledge, they create
the foundations for mastery learning. Curriculum de-
sign and the order of topics presented in each school
year should re­spect this natu­ral trajectory and where
each student finds himself on the road to mastery. To
use ­these ideas effectively, teachers are encouraged to
apply a neuroconstructivist curriculum design.
Pedagogy: Neuroconstructivist Curriculum
In Five Pillars of the Mind (Tokuhama-­Espinosa, 2019d),
­there is a proposed learning trajectory for both math
and language, but to successfully use this pedagogy in
a school, all subject m ­ atters need to be mapped out.
The brain’s neuroconstructivist neural networks do
seem to be well represented in U.S. national curricu-
lum, with a handful of exceptions (e.g., neurocon-
structivism suggests that division should be taught
­earlier and nearer to addition rather than to multipli-
cation). Having said that, studies in neuroconstructiv-
ism also make it clear that dividing school into dif­fer­ent
subjects is not r­ eally the way the brain naturally learns.
The brain looks globally for symbols, order, patterns,
categories, and relationships; it does not look naturally
for En­glish, math, physical education, art, and so on.
This means, where pos­si­ble, transdisciplinary instruc-
tion should be encouraged.
Online instruction offers a unique opportunity to
reach optimal per­for­mance. The majority of academic
leaders (77%) rated online learning as the same,
somewhat superior, or superior compared with face-­
to-­face classes when it comes to learning outcomes
(Allen & Seaman, 2016, p. 29). This is due to the qual-
ity, variety, and price of resources, and the flexibility of
time and space. We can now add to this the benefit of
being able to lay out course curriculum in a clear
learning trajectory that disaggregates each area into its
smaller parts, making each level of learning more
manageable. This is why programs like Khan Acad­emy
are so successful. Rather than trying to teach “grade
10th math,” it takes each subject of that level of
math—­ geometry, for example—­ and breaks it down
into dozens of subtopics, which, when or­ga­nized into
the appropriate hierarchy and order, result in better
learning (Long et al., 2016).
Laying out logical learning trajectories in online
contexts has even more benefits than in traditional
classes, ­because teachers can leverage the instructional
design and the digital resources of an online course to
make the learning paths more evident to learners
(Brown & Green, 2019). Once learning objectives are
vis­i­ble to the students, they become more attainable.
Rather than think “geometry” writ large, the instruc-
tional design can clarify the gains at each level of
learning ­toward the mastery of geometry, giving the
student a greater sense of achievement as they pro­
gress through dif­fer­ent milestones. This makes learn-
ing more like gaming in which students master
foundational levels and gain status as they move
­toward the ultimate goals. The online structure lends
itself to designing the mastery learning goals, which
permits greater differentiation in the paths ­ toward
success. The online structure assures that the objec-
tives remain the same for every­one, but their paths
­toward the goals can vary depending on each student’s
prior knowledge.
 Connecting Teaching and Learning Goals to Neuroscience: 40 Evidence-Informed Pedagogies 33
The More You Know, the More You Can Know
Relevant curriculum is based in part on Tenet 13:
Learning Is Developmental and Experiential and Tenet
20: Relevant and Meaningful Contexts. Physiologically
speaking, each new synapsis that forms can extend to
additional synapses (Eccles, 1964). This means that
when you learn something new, it increases the likeli-
hood of learning in the ­future: The more you know,
the more you can know (Boettcher, 2007). For exam-
ple, if you know the word “dog,” it means you have
neural connections between groups of synapses in se-
mantic memory that link the symbols “d” “o” “g” to a
definition, image, sound, and smell in your mind. This
­mental schema shifts and expands with e­ very new dog
we encounter. This neurological fact of plasticity
(Costandi, 2016) and how neural networks are formed
suggests we should expose our students to as wide a
variety of concepts as pos­si­
ble. This is a vote for
transdisciplinarity.
Pedagogy: Transdisciplinary Thinking
Transdisciplinary thinking means studying ideas
through multiple perspectives (Henriksen, 2016). For
example, “travel,” “animals,” “friendship,” and “free-
dom” can be studied in lit­er­a­ture, math, geography, art,
or other conceptual lenses. Admittedly, it takes more
energy to approach a course topic with a transdisci-
plinary lens, but as a pedagogy, the effort pays off in
enhanced conceptual understanding. The more ways
you understand a concept, the broader your ­mental
schema and its pos­si­ble uses (Busselle, 2017), and con-
sequently, the easier it ­will be to find in memory storage
in the ­future (Hasan et al., 2019). Transdisciplinary
planning has the added benefit of unifying topics. This
creates a more coherent learning structure for students
in which the same concept, idea, or topic is approached
from dif­fer­ent subject-­area perspectives. Sharp readers
­will see how transdisciplinarity pairs nicely with other
ideas in this book, such as interleaving.
GOAL: DIFFERENTIATION AND STUDENT
AUTONOMY
There Are Many Paths to Rome. Let the Students
Lead the Way.
Differentiation and student autonomy are well-­
accepted concepts (Tomlinson, 2014) supported by
Princi­ple 1: Uniqueness and Tenet 20: Relevant and
Meaningful Contexts. Differentiation suggests that all
learners are held to the same objectives, but teachers
can change evaluation and activities to meet individ-
ual needs. While teachers are normally responsible for
developing all three steps of setting objectives, identi-
fying evaluation criteria, and planning learning activi-
ties (backward design), a modern implementation of
differentiation is to invite student input on how
teacher-­identified objectives can be mea­sured (evalu-
ated) and what should be done (activities or learning
ele­ments): student-­driven curriculum.
Pedagogy: Student-­Driven Curriculum
Necessity is the m­ other of invention. Student-­driven
curriculum was motivated in part by the pandemic. It
became apparent that few schools ­were ­going to be
able to successfully meet the same curricular goals pre-­
pandemic as post (Dorn et al., 2020). Some schools
lost weeks waiting for national guidance, then lost
even more time getting teachers up to speed with
technology (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020). The g­reat
schools understood that they needed to prioritize
­mental health, and critical thinking, and that curricu-
lum goals would follow (Kaplan-­Rakowski, 2020). By
fall, most schools accepted t­here ­ were ­ going to be
learning losses. At that moment, some teachers real-
ized that their best shot at completing a successful
school year would be to let the students lead. They
identified the learning objectives, as they always do,
but rather than launch into a decision about how to
evaluate and teach to t­hose objectives, they went to
the students.
In an incredible display of trust, during the pan-
demic, I watched many teachers “let go.” They told the
students, “By the end of the school year, we need to
learn X. How should we get t­ here? How w ­ ill we know
if we are successful?” The results w ­ ere surprising, cre-
ative, thoughtful, and innovative. Given the opportu-
nity, students ­rose to the occasion to be active partners
in the construction of their own learning. Many teach-
ers attested to their relief and joy; most of the students’
ideas ­ were not only on task, they suggested better
ideas than they had originally planned.
The Person Who Does the Work Is the Person Who
Does the Learning
Student autonomy is based in part on Tenet 20:
Relevant and Meaningful Contexts, which relates to
the pedagogy of “letting go” and letting students lead.
In education, we know that the person who does the
work is the person who does the learning (Bray &
McClaskey, 2014; Tokuhama-­ Espinosa, 2014). A
34 Bringing the Neuroscience of Learning to Online Teaching
deceptively easy pedagogy to employ is to shift the
workload to the learner.
Pedagogy: Au­then­tic Learning Activities
Au­then­tic learning means that the learning is “real”
for the learners, within their context and using their
conceptual knowledge (Lombardi, 2007). Bringing a
topic closer to real-­world contexts allows the student
to give meaning to the task and better connect it to
previous memories and existing neural networks
(Johnson, 2019). In addition, au­then­tic learning ori-
ents the brain’s attention systems t­oward the activity
­because the student is part of it (one ­can’t ignore one-
self). This improves the chances of knowledge integra-
tion into memory. For example, if the goal is to
calculate the area of a rectangle, a teacher might ask
the basketball lovers in class to calculate the area of a
court.
GOAL: SOCIAL CONTAGION
Ever since Milgram and colleagues’ work in the 1960s,
social psychologists have been keenly aware of how
­humans interpret and use cues from other p ­ eople’s
faces to make decisions that change their be­
­ hav­
ior
(Miller & Milgram, 1963). We know social contagion
exists in face-­ to-­
face situations based on studies of
­people yawning (Gallup, 2020), when they say they
feel an itch (Holle et al., 2012), or if they smile (Arnold
& Winkielman, 2020). We know that if somebody says
“it is ­really cold in ­here,” the other person says, “oh
yeah, right, it is kind of cold in ­here!” (Cooper et al.,
2014). Social contagion of emotion in face-­ to-­
face
contexts happens daily (we all have memories of one
kid in class crying and then every­one e­ lse starts to cry
as well), but recently teachers also understand that so-
cial contagion exists in virtual contacts as well, and
can be equally or more intense than face-­ to-­
face
(Belkin et al., 2006).
Social contagion is the diffusion of positive or neg-
ative emotions, ideas, attitudes, or behavioral patterns
(Schilbach et al., 2008). Social contagion occurs in a
group through the imitation of one or more ­people
and through group conformance (Berger, 2008).
Positive be­hav­iors in the classroom (e.g., kindness or
passion) can be “spread” to students who ­will share
the same emotions. Additionally, ­there is no cognition
without emotion (Immordino-­Yang & Damasio, 2007),
and the best conditions for learning are created when
­there are positive emotions, when the teacher’s en-
thusiasm for the subject is strong, and/or the teacher’s
interest in the students’ learning is apparent (Frenzel
et al., 2019). ­Great teachers are contagious in their
passion (Fabelico & Afalla, 2020).
Social contagion can occur online faster than in
regular classrooms ­because we can see each other’s
faces (Pinilla et al., 2020) during the synchronous
­
video conferencing (i.e., Zoom). In a real brick-­and-­
mortar classroom, many students look at the back of
each other’s necks, or during the pandemic, wore
masks and sat six feet apart, whereas in a good video
conferencing setup, you can see every­one’s face. This
is power­ful in terms of social contagion as the speed of
emotion is increased by the visualization of all parties
and their reactions to all shared content (Parkinson,
2020). To spread the contagion even faster, from the
very first day of class teachers can call on students by
name, bringing them into the conversation much
more personally. In a virtual classroom, all teachers
have the ability to identify every­one accurately and
without hesitation b ­ecause their names are u ­nder
their ­faces.
People Can and Do Affect Each Other’s Emotional
States
Social contagion shows p ­ eople can and often do affect
each other’s emotional states (Israelashvili et al.,
2019). This is due in part to Tenet 9: Social Interaction
and Tenet 20: Relevant and Meaningful Contexts.
­Humans learn from their senses (Martin & Martin,
2012); and sensory perception enters the brain, and
the first stop is to check in with memory systems
(Tresp et al., 2019). The brain checks to see if the new
information matches any prior knowledge, including
emotional triggers (Ferbinteanu, 2019). The natu­ral
course of sensory perception means before thinking
cognitively, ­humans think affectively (Oron Semper
et al., 2016), and that emotions are abundant in social
situations, like classroom settings. G
­ reat teachers le-
verage h ­ umans’ highly social nature in school con-
texts by designing small-­group work experiences.
Pedagogy: Small-­Group Work
Small-­group work is effective in part due to the emo-
tional engagement involved in social exchanges. While
larger groups are effective in getting out messages
that every­one needs to hear in the same way, small-­
group work—­ especially comprised of mixed-­ ability
learners—­has the benefit of personalization (Akcaoglu
& Lee, 2016), differentiation (McNamara & Moreton,
2016), leveraging emotional states for better learn-
ing (Anderson, 2020), and takes advantage of peer
 Connecting Teaching and Learning Goals to Neuroscience: 40 Evidence-Informed Pedagogies 35
teaching (Kim et al., 2020). Small, mixed-­ ability
groupings give highfliers the chance to shine and
struggling learners the opportunity to learn from
peers. Both strong and struggling students benefit
from small-­group work (Jones, 2007), and the strong
student is actually the one who gains slightly more as
teaching is one of the best forms of learning (Francis
et al., 2019). Small-­group work also fosters collabora-
tion and creates the opportunity for prob­lem solving at
a higher level of thinking than individual work as stu-
dents need to use additional skill sets and communica-
tion strategies (Ganapathy et al., 2017).
Fi­nally, small-­group work is wonderful for putting
the fin­ger on the pulse of individual learner needs.
This gives teachers the opportunity to look students in
the eye, especially in online classes, and take the tem-
perature of their understanding. Students ­will often
share in small groups in ways they would not in the
larger group (Wilson et al., 2006). The pandemic
showed us that having the space to commiserate, com-
municate, celebrate, and share plays an impor­tant role
in building a learning community. In our experience,
sharing in small online breakout rooms for 5–12 min-
utes can often yield more learning than 45 minutes in
a large group. Teachers can take this sharing to an-
other level in online settings by creating informal
Zoom luncheons (“Happy Hours”) in which the objec-
tive is simply to connect. This parallels the old physical
“Teachers Only” rooms that used to exist in schools,
where teachers could grab a cup of coffee and bounce
ideas off of colleagues. Knowing o ­ thers and their per-
spectives helps teachers make better decisions.
Small groups work best when students are clear
about what is expected of them, meaning precise
instructions are needed, both online and face-to-
face. Telling students to “go and discuss” an idea is
not as effective as saying, “Read passage X in the
book and collectively finish three sentences: ‘I
see . . . ; I think . . . ; I wonder.’ Then come back to
the large group in 15 minutes ready to share.”
Teachers can also piggyback small-group work off
of the larger class by saying, “Let’s all calculate the
answer to the following problem [show problem]
individually. Now go into your small groups and
explain your process to the other two people.
Compare the ways you answered the problem.
Decide if you like your process or someone else’s
better for future work. Come back to the large
group ready to explain what you will do the next
time you are faced with the same kind of problem.”
There Is No Cognition Without Emotion
Small-­group interactions are effective for many rea-
sons, not the least of which is b ­ ecause learners see
each other up close. The brain pro­cesses input from
facial cues and emotional states unconsciously and al-
most immediately (Dolcos et al., 2011). The emotions
triggered by o­ thers’ ­faces influence cognition (Dolcos
et al., 2020). Tenet 7: ­ Faces explains that ­ humans
gauge each other’s emotions through facial cues.
Pedagogy: Explic­itly Teach Empathy, Emotions,
and Facial Cues
Physiologically speaking, we learn through our senses
and ­can’t help but first interpret perception through
emotions a split second before we do so cognitively
(Panksepp et al., 2017). This suggests that when teach-
ers decide to prioritize social–­emotional learning and
well-­being over content-­area instruction, they are ap-
plying learning science concepts instinctively. How
you feel influences how you think (Immordino-­Yang
& Damasio, 2007). All learning depends on well-­
functioning attention and memory systems, both of
which are influenced by emotions. This means that
every learning moment hinges on the balance be-
­
tween emotional states triggered by attention and
memory, and the resulting cognition (Derakshan &
Eysenck, 2010).
Emotions are conveyed by facial expressions, and
they are transmitted contagiously to o ­ thers (Hatfield
et al., 2014). It is pos­si­ble to gauge students’ emotions
faster online through video conferencing in Zoom
than in regular classroom settings ­because ­faces are
more vis­i­ble. If managed well, student engagement
can be increased online by taking the lead in social
contagion and transmitting positive emotional states
to create good learning environments (Burgess et al.,
2018).
Some teachers use knowledge about faces and
emotions to help them decide which students
should be brought more actively into the class
discussion by purposefully calling on those who
look distracted. This is the equivalent in a face-to-
face classroom of walking over and gently putting a
hand on their shoulder of a distracted student to
remind them to tune in. Others use this knowledge
explicitly and recognize student effort (e.g.,
“Marcie, it looks like you are thinking hard about
this. Do you have a question we can use to clarify
36 Bringing the Neuroscience of Learning to Online Teaching
this big idea?”). Teachers can leverage the use of
facial cues in online classroom management in both
implicit and explicit ways.
Prioritize Social–Emotional Learning over
Content Memorization
­ reat teachers know that their Tone of Voice (Tenet 8)
G the prompt is a good one, it is not uncommon for
can often carry a bigger message than the words them-
selves, both online and face-­to-­face. The ­human brain
quickly picks up on tone, albeit unconsciously (Belin
et al., 2004), so ­great teachers learn to manage their
own voices. Passion and enthusiasm are transmitted
through tones of voices and are socially contagious
(Johnson, 2009). Unfortunately, boredom, disinterest,
and irritation are equally transmitted through tones of
voices. Expert teachers are conscious of this and mea­
sure their tones to match the moment, another impor­
tant aspect of classroom management.
Pedagogy: Explic­itly Teach Emotional Cues from Voices
Reading emotional cues from voices is something
many teachers do intuitively, and o ­ thers can learn
quickly. Teachers can learn to hear both what the stu-
dent says and how he says it and then react accord-
ingly. Intonation changes meaning (Filippi, 2020). A
kid who says “I d ­ on’t know” is expressing dif­fer­ent
messages if this is said sadly, angrily, or desperately.
Teachers can use this insight to respond in the appro-
priate way, and diffuse or encourage be­hav­ior accord-
ingly. Both the nonverbal facial cues and the verbal
voice cues are perceived and interpreted by the brain
almost instantly (Ross & Atkinson, 2020), a character-
istic inherited from our ancestors for survival purposes
(Belin et al., 2004). Interpretation of f­aces and voices
is culturally biased (Bonvillain, 2019), however, and
­these cues must be taken in context.
GOAL: STRONG LEARNING COMMUNITIES
Strong learning communities are t­hose that harness
the wisdom of the group and leverage the dif­fer­ent
personalities to further the goals of the class as a w
­ hole
(Szolnoki et al., 2012). It is impor­tant, but not suffi-
cient, that teachers know each student; students also
need to know each other. To create a strong commu-
nity, ­great teachers use a variety of tools, starting with
activities that help individuals understand the dif­fer­
ent perspectives with which a topic can be viewed.
Perspective taking is a valuable skill set and impor­tant
for building empathy in the community (Zygouris-­
Coe, 2019).
Online discussion boards can be used to create
community. They start with a strong prompt that
goes with the theme of the topic and ask students
to react to it as well as respond to peers’ ideas. If
students to go beyond the minimum level of
required exchanges and have longer conversations
around ideas, which helps build up trust among the
learners and lays the foundation for a great
community. Discussion boards can be written or
recorded in online contexts, facilitating their use by
a range of learners. Even the youngest students
enjoy giving their opinions. Children build up a
range of important communication skills and learn
social protocols for the exchange of ideas as they
learn to value the contributions of others.
We Know Ourselves Better by Knowing the Other
The ­human brain constantly checks in with memory
systems to compare what it already knows with any
new information (Fuster, 1997). This is especially true
about self-­knowledge. ­People and their brains define
themselves by comparisons with o ­thers (Dimaggio
et al., 2011). We know ourselves better by understand-
ing “the other;” by extension, the more “­others” we
know in life, the better defined we are. This is supported
by Tenet 12: Conscious and Unconscious Pro­cesses.
Pedagogy: Leverage Theory of Mind
Theory of Mind (ToM) is a concept originally intro-
duced to show the evolving understanding ­children
have about their world and their place in it (Wellman,
2018). Around 3 to 4 years old, most ­children start to
move out of their egotistical worldview and the belief
that every­one sees the world as they do, and they be-
gin to understand that p ­ eople’s perspectives change
depending on their experiences (Carlson et al., 2013).
Extended to older c­hildren and adults, it points to
the idea that self-­ knowledge increases with well-­
orchestrated social exchanges such as t­ hose in schools.
As a pedagogy, the use of ToM celebrates the diversity
of students who become resources for one another,
which can be extended in online settings as class-
rooms, which in turn can literally be a one-­world
school­house (Khan, 2012).
 Connecting Teaching and Learning Goals to Neuroscience: 40 Evidence-Informed Pedagogies 37
While not yet a part of educational planning in
most schools, online learning has also shown that the
borderless classroom means teachers can now integrate
students from all around the world as well as be teach-
ers in other countries and contexts. This is mutually
beneficial to teachers and learners. ­Every kid can have
the “best” teachers and learn from a greater variety of
classmates, and teachers can broaden their learning
goals around not only local, but now more global is-
sues in an au­then­tic way.
As the pandemic struck in 2020, we watched as
some schools pooled resources. Boarding schools in
Switzerland closed doors, but opened up new
partnerships with online brokers who broadened
the classroom reach to students typically not
included due to socioeconomic status. Schools with
online accreditation in Australia were soon getting
homeschool support requests from Africa. Schools
are no longer limited by geography, and thanks to
online possibilities, students can be nurtured by a
learning community that is much broader than ever
thought possible.
1 + 1=3: Collaboration Yields More than
Individual Efforts
­ eople can and do learn on their own. However, the
P Cross-­institutional cooperation is an extension of
brain appreciates social exchanges (Fehr & Gintis,
2007), and we know that ­people often learn about
themselves by learning about ­others (Vazire & Mehl,
2008). A good discussion and exchange of ideas on a
topic enhances learning outcomes. I like to say
“1 + 1=3” b­ ecause the w
­ hole is greater than the sum of
the parts. This is supported by Tenet 9: Social
Interaction. ­Humans expand their own understanding
of concepts and of themselves when they listen to
­others’ perspectives. The very ­human need to socially
connect is equally, if not more, impor­tant in online
settings (Phirangee & Malec, 2017).
Pedagogy: Collaborate as Learners
Collaboration leads to far better solutions than any
one person can derive on their own (Scoular et al.,
2020). One person might have a g­ reat idea, and an-
other might have a good idea, but the minute they
share them, they create something better than ­either
could have produced on their own. Collaborative
learning time allows students to share problem-­solving
goals and to learn from one another.
Collaboration is also evident when students take
the initiative to support each another. During the ini-
tial move to online during the pandemic, we saw mul-
tiple examples of this as students maneuvered the new
technology of ­going online. It is inevitable that ­there
­will always be a handful of students who are ahead of
the curve with technology. What was less intuitive but
very gratifying was that this advanced group reached
out to slower peers to guide them, showing them how
to change their screens, unmute themselves, or change
their backgrounds during the live class sessions. Other
models of this kind of work comes from collaborative
teaching.
Pedagogy: Collaborative Teaching
Teachers know that learning is social (Csibra & Gergely,
2006). Collaboration is a key ingredient in times of cri-
sis, and vital in all ­human learning endeavors (­Sullivan
& Glanz, 2005). One way to view collaboration is to
think about dividing and conquering through shared
responsibilities. Teachers knew well before COVID
that teamwork is valuable and collaboration yields
better results as well as saves time (Hargreaves, 2019)
in the long run. To move forward in the hard times
posed by COVID-19, we witnessed how several teach-
ers shared the production of pre-­class flipped videos,
and collaborated to research and develop bundles
(mini-­libraries) with digital tools.
cooperation among colleagues on the same campus.
Teachers who taught similar subject areas but in dif­fer­
ent schools began to reach out to one another during
the pandemic. Many who had worked in­de­pen­dently
up ­until the crisis found it beneficial to pool resources
across campuses and state lines. A group of early child-
hood educators we worked with in Florida gave a work-
shop to teachers in Hawaii to share strategies to involve
parents in their ­children’s learning, for example.
A g­ reat benefit of this pandemic collaboration was
that a number of teachers in dif­fer­ent disciplines real-
ized that the division of classes by subject areas was
not necessarily superior to transdisciplinary thinking
or cross-­class collaboration. Rather than work alone in
silos, teachers began to connect with one another to
design transdisciplinary research proj­ ects for their
shared students. ­These ­great teachers made the time
students spent on project-­ based learning count for
multiple subject areas, which also deepened their un-
derstanding of concepts. It was fulfilling to witness
how both students and teachers loved t­hese common
goals, which permitted more au­ then­tic problem-­
solving approaches to student work. The lesson that
38 Bringing the Neuroscience of Learning to Online Teaching
was reconfirmed was that collaboration among and
between teachers, departments, and even ­ whole
schools is better than g­ oing it alone.
Share to Build Community
Strong communities are built on trust, and trust comes
from sharing positive, social interactions. G
­ reat teach-
ers structure activities in which students’ ideas, opin-
ions, and beliefs can be shared safely (Humiston et al.,
2020). Sharing to build community is based in part on
Tenet 9: Social Interaction and Tenet 20: Relevant and
Meaningful Contexts.
Pedagogy: Leverage Small Breakout Room Sharing
A balanced se­lection of asynchronous and synchronous
activities is key to learning (Chapter 4). If teachers can
off-­load individual practice and rehearsal to asynchro-
nous homework, it creates more time synchronously to
share, collaborate, debate, discuss, and dig deeper into
ideas when together. One way to do this is through a
breakout room. Use of online breakout rooms, such as
­those in Zoom, is quicker to set up, allotting more time
for ­actual work. Teachers can or­ga­nize the rooms ran-
domly so that students get to meet dif­fer­ent classmates,
or they can be arranged purposefully, for example, or to
design peer learning moments.
Online Disinhibition Effect
First described by Joinson in 1998 and brought to the
public’s attention by Suler in 2001, the disinhibition
effect means that p­ eople feel a kind of protection, of-
ten due to the anonymity experienced while being on-
line. This allows students to share more than they
normally would in person. If teachers learn to manage
the disinhibition effect well, t­here is the potential for
greater student exchange than typically occurs in tra-
ditional classrooms. This is perhaps the most misun-
derstood ele­ment of online learning: It is actually more
au­then­tic and intimate than many intuitively think
(Chadha, 2019).
Pedagogy: Cold C all by Name in Video Conferencing
An effective online pedagogy is cold calling, facilitated
by the disinhibition effect. In order to learn, p ­ eople
need attention and memory (Princi­ple 6). One cannot
help but pay attention when one is the center of atten-
tion (Tenet 10: Attention). Cold calling involves calling
on dif­fer­
ent students throughout the class, asking
them to share their thinking. This ensures every­one’s
voice is heard over the course of the meeting, validat-
ing their presence and celebrating their part in making
the group w ­ hole. This includes calling on p
­ eople who
raise their hands, as well ­those who have their cam-
eras turned off, and ­doing so by name in a fair and
balanced way, making sure that e­ very voice is heard in
­every class.
Teachers can blend small-group work seamlessly
into the large group by cold calling a learner who
has not yet participated. “Tamara, who was in your
group, and what were the main ideas you came up
with?” In this way, students become habituated to
the idea that they need to learn each other’s names
and to be mindful of what is said by others in the
small groups. Calling on students to report after
they have met in small groups causes less anxiety
than asking them to comment or opinionate,
warming them up to the idea of talking in front of
others. Once they have experienced talking in the
large group in this way, it is not uncommon for
learners to then begin to join in voluntarily as the
fear factor of participation is gone.
GOAL: PERSONALIZATION
Online learning can be personal. Good classroom
management skills in large groups take advantage of
small-­group work to ensure every­one participates to
the fullest. Teachers who have used group work in the
traditional class setting quickly realize that organ­izing
small-­group work online takes a fraction of the time.
Teachers can put p ­ eople in groups of two [three] [four]
[five] [ten] in seconds. ­Because orga­nizational and lo-
gistical time are reduced, t­ here is more time for deeper
discussion. ­These small collaborative groups warm up
students to sharing and permit learners time to con-
solidate ideas before they come back to the big-­group
discussion. This not only makes small-­ group work
easy to or­ga­nize, but also increases the likelihood of
participation.
A Person’s Self-Perception as a Learner
­ arlier we shared that students live up or down to the
E
expectations placed on them by teachers. A related idea
is that a person’s self-­perception as a learner is ­shaped
by teachers, and that, in turn, influences learning out-
comes (Chong et al., 2018). G ­ reat teachers know how
to leverage social contagion in their f­avor and send
 Connecting Teaching and Learning Goals to Neuroscience: 40 Evidence-Informed Pedagogies 39
positive messages to students that help them believe in
their own abilities. This is achieved in part by caring.
Pedagogy: Show You C are
Teachers can show they care on multiple levels that
range from subtly inquiring how students are feeling to
directly conducting a wellness check-in. They can skirt
around feelings (e.g., “You usually have so much to
contribute but ­were so quiet ­today. Every­thing okay?”),
or directly say, “I’m worried about you. What’s wrong?”
Teachers can also design activities in which they
facilitate the exchanges between students that can be
mutually helpful. Commiseration is unstructured com-
passion; teachers who proactively design encounters to
help students connect to share feelings and opinions
send the message that “you ­matter,” which indirectly
expresses caring. Teachers know how to send the right
message when they know their students well.
You Can’t Teach Students If You Don’t Know Them
One of the key messages in community building is to
know your audience. To communicate well, teachers
need to know their students. This can happen over
time slowly, or quickly through the use of icebreakers.
Icebreakers speed up social exchanges in a kind of
“speed dating” way in which participants share some
details about their lives that ­others can use to quickly
know that person better. In our classes, we like “Three
Truths and a Lie” as it brings humor and laughter to
first encounters, opens p
­ eople up to one another within
a short time, and can be used with all age groups.
Knowing ­others is based on Tenet 9: Social Interaction.
Pedagogy: Listen
Some excellent teachers set aside time to get to know
each of their students individually. Pestalozzi’s peda-
gogy of listening (Manyozo, 2016) suggests that hear-
ing out students’ needs w ­ ill usually point teachers
­toward good pedagogical choices. Just asking a stu-
dent, “What do you need from me to be successful this
year?” can bring out multiple ideas. A colleague asked
this question of his students at the start of the pan-
demic, and was surprised to hear that several of them
just wanted to be together, albeit online. He took ad-
vantage of this request to do a lot of small-­group work
in the breakout rooms, which led to a successful
student-­driven curriculum for the year. ­There is a now
famous video by Kyle Schwartz (2016) in which she
asks kids to finish the sentence “I wish my teacher
knew.  . 
. .” This sparked an avalanche of ideas,
exposing the power of knowing kids to help them
learn. You c­ an’t teach them if you d
­ on’t know them.
GOAL: CLEAR COMMUNICATION
The Brain Can’t Let It Go
­ umans can only manage one heavy cognitive load
H
task at a time; brains cannot multitask (Miller, 2017).
While habituated be­hav­iors can lower cognitive load,
in general, the brain can only focus on one ­thing at a
time, which is why clarification immediacy is so
impor­tant. This focus is based on Princi­ple 6: Attention
Systems and Memory Systems.
Pedagogy: Clarification Immediacy
It is impor­tant to take advantage of ­every minute with
students in synchronous time by prioritizing commu-
nication immediacy. Implementing clear protocols for
getting student questions asked and answered imme-
diately allows the discussion to flow seamlessly in a
student-­centered way. To do this, teachers need to an-
ticipate questions that may occur and work them into
the pre­sen­ta­tion naturally. Getting in synch in this
way can be facilitated by pre­sen­ta­tion templates. The
first slide shares the day’s objective. The second through
fifth use student quotes from the discussion board that
serve as the jumping-­off points of the day’s discussion.
The sixth through ninth slides highlight core concepts
from the pre-­class slide deck that need clarification or
further explanations. The tenth slide summarizes the
main ideas, and the eleventh reminds students to do
the 3-2-1 reflection.
Another tool that is typically used in online set-
tings with ­middle school through university students
is the chat. What is less known is how to take advan-
tage of it for immediate clarification, which helps stu-
dents stay on topic. The chat can also help to take the
pulse (and attendance) of the group.
Just a few minutes before the official start of a
synchronous class, teachers can check in with students
who arrive early to see what’s on their minds and to
take the pulse of the group. When they begin record-
ing at the official start of the class, they can begin by
asking a question about the pre-­class flipped video, re-
lating it to a situation or event students are familiar
with. This serves to ground the students in a focal
point for discussion, and naturally links their day-­to-­
day lives and class. The answers to this first question
help the teacher get a sense of what students are con-
cerned about, and what parts of the flipped pre-­class
Figure 2.6. ​Live Class Slide Deck Template

01 Objectives (agenda) 02 Discussion Board Ideas

1. Ideas from Student Discussion Board

(Prompt: "How are Art and Math Related?")
• Some art, like origami, uses math
• All design uses math
• Math and art are different ways of seeing the world
2. Breakout Rooms: "I used to think Math… And now I think Math…"
3. Big idea: Mathematics permeates our lives
4. Big idea: Math is more than formulas
Some art, like origami, uses math
Clara: “Origami is one of my favorite pastimes and it involves
a lot of angles and precisions, just like math calculations do…”
Stevie: “You can see math in some art, like Cubism…”
Gerardo: “…People can learn to draw using geometric figures,
like squares and circles…”

03 Discussion Board Ideas 04 Discussion Board Ideas

All design uses math

Math and art are different ways
Carlos: "When you design a car you use math."
of seeing the world
Cyndi: "People who build houses use math, like architects
Kaitlyn: "Artists and Mathematicians see the world differently."
and engineers…"
Michael: "I know it’s a myth, but I think the brains
Alba: "Measurements are math, like when you buy shoes
of math minds are different from artists’ minds".
or a new skirt."

:) Placeholder for Breakout Rooms 05 Discussion Board Ideas (optional)

1. Think about the endings to these two sentences:
• "I used to think Math…"
• "And now I think Math…"
2. Go to the Breakout Room and discuss your ideas.
3. Come back to the large classroom in 10 minutes to share
the similarities and differences of the group members’ responses.

06 Key Idea 1 07 Key Idea 1 (optional)

BIG IDEA: MATHEMATICS PERMEATES OUR LIVES BIG IDEA: MATHEMATICS PERMEATES OUR LIVES
There is no part of our lives in which math is absent. Math is in everything, even in art.

08 Key Idea 2 09 Key Idea 2 (optional)

BIG IDEA: MATH IS MORE THAN FORMULAS

10 Summary 1. "How are Art and Math Related?" 11 Invitation to do 3-2-1

• Some art, like origami, uses math 3-2-1 REFLECTION
• All design uses math
• Math and art are different ways
of seeing the world
2. Breakout Rooms: "I used to think
Math… 3 things that are new (unknown before)
And now I think Math…" 2 things so interesting you will continue to research them or share with someone else
3. Math is everywhere! 1 thing you will change about your practice based on the information shared today
 Connecting Teaching and Learning Goals to Neuroscience: 40 Evidence-Informed Pedagogies 41
video ­were of most importance. Teachers can then ask
students to write a quick response in the chat (“So, use
the chat to tell me one of the key headlines you took
away from the pre-­class video,” or “Please use the chat
function to write ‘I see . . . ​I think . . . ​I won­der . . .’
about the pre-­class video”). D­ oing this gives the teacher
information about student ideas on the content and
also generates a list of all the ­people that are in class on
time.
The brain has a hard time paying attention when it
is confused or has a question. Chats can resolve
this. Telling students to “please leave all your
questions to the end” is a bad idea as it ignores
every need the brain has to stay focused. The brain
can’t let go until that first question is resolved,
meaning attention is divided. Teachers can use the
chat to get questions answered immediately so that
people can stay focused on the current discussion
and as a back channel to enhance clarity.
Initially, many teachers are very uncomfortable
with the chat because it’s almost like inviting
students to pass notes behind their back. But if the
note is about the class content, that’s okay! Most
students don’t want to stop the flow of the
discussion by raising their hands and interrupting
the whole class. The chat resolves this. We find that
once they ask the question in the chat, many
people say, “Thanks! I had the exact same
question!” which encourages its future use. Many
students who are uncomfortable talking out loud in
class are able to participate actively using the chat.
Even the best of teachers know they need help
to leverage the chat correctly, however. Some
teachers are lucky enough to have assistants, but
others who do not have this luxury can recruit
students. Chat summarization is a great skill set that
many students are willing to learn on the job. The
assistant’s job is to assure that the chat stays on
topic and call attention to important ideas being
shared there.
Communication Regularity Lowers Anxiety
Communication regularity is an impor­tant school pol-
icy that helps lowers individual angst (Gray & DiLoreto,
2016). Communication regularity is related to Tenet 4:
Anxiety and Tenet 6: Challenge and Threat. As men-
tioned ­earlier, good instructional design lowers cogni-
tive load ­because students ­don’t have to waste energy
guessing what they need to be ­doing. Similarly, good
communication reduces the amount of energy needed
to find information in virtual classrooms. We w ­ ill go
into communication policy in Chapter 4 (­Table 4.3)
and for now ­will focus on teachers’ role in facilitating
good communication.
Pedagogy: Be Predictable
The brain seeks novelties and patterns (Tenet 21).
While novelty is g­ reat for getting attention, patterns
are impor­tant for establishing regularity. One way to
lower anxiety is to be predictable by clarifying the fre-
quency and regularity of communication as well as
appropriate tools. As mentioned in Chapter 3, com-
munication tools are wide and varied and serve dif­fer­
ent purposes. Regular check-­ins help students know
when and how a teacher can be counted on for
support.
Aside from establishing clear communication
channels, teachers can also show predictable be­hav­
iors. ­Great teachers can always be found a few min-
utes before or ­after class to talk, and/or respond to
emails within 24 hours, and/or have office hours at a
regular time. Erratic messaging erodes trust; ­ great
teachers are predictable.
In summary, these 40 pedagogies can be applied
individually or as a unit. They are equally effective in
online settings as in traditional classrooms, and they
serve as some of the best evidence-­informed practices
in remote learning that are available to date. We turn
now to look at some of the tools of our new trade that
can be used to complement ­these pedagogies as we
move our teaching wholly or partially, temporarily,
sporadically, or permanently online.
 CHAPTER 3
Choosing Tools
In this chapter, we first look at how the brain naturally
makes choices among the many options that exist, and
then suggest ways to improve this decision-making
process to prioritize student learning.
All the successful paths used to structure ­great on-
line courses include backward design, in spirit or explic­
itly. Backward design is an elegant planning system
developed by Jay McTighe with his colleague Grant
Wiggins (1998). Backward design, or Understanding by
Design (UbD), is all about educational planning and
smart decision-making. To better appreciate UbD, it
helps to understand the ways the brain weighs choices
and comes to decisions.
WORKED EXAMPLES
A worked example is often one of the best ways to
lower anxiety about a new learning task. When stu-
dents hear, “You’ll be fine if your paper [math solu-
tion] [lab book] [drawing] [song] [­free throw] looks
something like this,” and then see an example, they
usually relax. Lowering the anxiety in this way has
two main benefits. First, we know that ­people who are
highly anxious or stressed cannot learn b ­ ecause the
combination of neurotransmitters (chemicals in the
brain) that are needed to learn are interrupted by the
neurotransmitters generated by anxiety (Piray et al.,
2019). This means that neurophysiologically speaking,
new connections (learning) cannot occur in this highly
emotive state.
Second, if learners have a worked model, they
can better gauge just how far away their own product
or pro­cess is from reaching the “ideal” they are being
shown. This gives the brain a good estimation of how
much work is needed to actually achieve the model-­
like outcome. In effect, this gives the learner an inter-
nal timeline for the steps needed to get closer to the
ideal. The ­human mind is constantly comparing and
contrasting new tasks to old ones to speed up learn-
ing, and worked examples make this review pos­si­ble.
All new learning passes through the filter of prior
experience (Princi­ple 3). When faced with a new idea,
42
the brain weighs the costs and the benefits of adopting
it, which is mea­sured in energy. H ­ umans expend less
energy learning when the new idea is similar to some-
thing already known. This natu­ ral compare-­ and-­
contrast pro­cess of the brain explains why it is often
hard to let go of old beliefs; p
­ eople may find it easier to
cling to old ideas, even irrational ones, than to expend
the energy to change (Tokuhama-­ Espinosa, 2019c).
The brain is an amazing organ and the master of its own
pro­cesses. To use less energy, the brain often defaults to
old knowledge or practices rather than expend energy
to change and learn (Figure 2.2). This can explain why
many activities that have no evidence ­behind them are
so frequently used in education, while other activities
that are heavi­ly backed by evidence might be ignored.
The concept of interleaving is a good example.
As we saw in Chapter 2, interleaving is a teaching
pro­cess in which subject-­ area knowledge is mixed
over time, rather than taught in a single or immedi-
ately sequential block. Rather than think of teaching
and learning in terms of siloed instruction in a set pe-
riod of time, interleaving challenges teachers to think
about spreading out the instruction over time, dosing
out learning moments in smaller segments. T ­ here are
over 63,000 scientific articles that substantiate the ef-
fectiveness of interleaving on learning, including mul-
tiple meta-­analyses that summarize the benefits of this
practice (e.g., Chan et al., 2018; Firth et al., 2019;
Kang, 2016). With so much evidence b ­ ehind inter-
leaving, it seems that it would be taught in e­very
teacher college and be used far more broadly than it is.
What keeps such a ­great teaching practice from being
applied? The answer is in the effort it takes to learn
something new and the way the brain reacts to com-
plexity. For de­cades, teachers have been specialized to
teach single subjects in a certain way, in a certain or-
der, usually following a certain textbook in a certain
time frame. As teachers plan, they have been coached
to follow the flow of a school day that is divided by
schedules into blocks of time. Interleaving asks teach-
ers to question what they have been ­doing for years,
which makes many won­der ­whether it is worth the
energy and effort.
 Choosing Tools 43
Students who experience interleaving retain
learning competencies for much longer periods of
time, in a greater number of contexts, and with greater
depth, suggesting that is it superior to typical class-
room block lessons in which a topic is taught, tested,
and often forgotten (Zulkiply & Burt, 2013). But inter-
leaving is not intuitive, easy to explain, or easy to ap-
ply. This may be why interleaving and other ­ great
teaching interventions go unapplied, despite being su-
perior in terms of learning outcomes. The lesson? The
­simple choice is often not the best one when it
comes to our complex brains. The choice of the
right tools takes energy. This is especially true as teach-
ers move online and have thousands more options
available, many of which can look “hard” b ­ecause
they are unfamiliar and/or require more energy to un-
derstand. To make the best choices pos­si­ble, teachers
have an ally in Understanding by Design.
UNDERSTANDING BY DESIGN
To apply Understanding by Design (Wiggins & McTighe,
2005), the key starter question is, What is the learning
objective? The answer to that question can then be used
to reply to a second question, How ­will that objective be
evaluated? And fi­nally, What activities or resources can be
used to get the evidence I need to show I am moving ­toward
the objective? When considering the best (latest, great-
est) way to teach math [language arts] [science] [his-
tory] [­music] [physical education] [social science], the
answer w ­ ill always be, It depends! And mainly it de-
pends on the objective.
Every­thing a person learns can be divided into
­either knowledge like dates, facts, formulas, figures,
concepts, theories, and so on; skills, or the ability to
apply and integrate that knowledge; or attitudes, the
values and characteristics we hope to instill over time.
Knowledge, skills, and attitudes also take dif­ fer­
ent
amounts of time to learn and must be evaluated in dif­
fer­ent ways.
Educational competencies—­the objectives—­are
the sum of the knowledge, skills, and attitudes we have
identified for our topic.
One way to understand the dif­fer­ent types of com-
petencies is through “a hole in the wall.” Sugata Mitra
conducted a fascinating experiment in which he put a
computer into “a hole in the wall,” and left it to see what
would happen (Mitra, 2015). He found that small groups
of street ­children would gather around, and then begin
to teach each other ­things using the computer. ­After a
dozen years of follow-up, he came to a very in­ter­est­ing
conclusion. Learners—­ even undereducated, young,
street c­ hildren—­can self-­organize and teach themselves
knowledge-­based learning often faster than they can be
taught the same material in our typical classrooms (Mitra
& Crawley, 2014). In fact, t­hese self-­organizing groups
managed to learn the entire primary school curriculum
in less time than occurs in schools. This showed that
content knowledge can be learned relatively quickly
and without much teacher guidance if students have the
Internet. Aside from showing that education does not
always have to be led by a knowledgeable teacher but
can rather be peer-­to-­peer instructed, he also showed it
­doesn’t take a lot of time to memorize knowledge-­based
objectives. This makes us question the role of the teacher,
but only briefly. A key revelation of Mitra’s work was
that skills and attitudes, on the other hand, depend
heavi­ly on teacher presence. Knowledge—­dates, facts,
figures, concepts, names, places, and other “Googleable”
information—­can be learned quickly and be technology
assisted, but skills and attitudes need a h ­ uman touch.
While teachers might not be necessary to teach
formulas or vocabulary, they are needed to teach how
to use this knowledge. Memorization of fact-­based in-
formation does not take a lot of time, relatively speak-
ing. Even small c­ hildren can memorize poems or the
multiplication ­table in just a few hours. It takes more
time, however, to learn the significance of the poem
and how and when to use multiplication instead of
­simple addition, which is best achieved with a teacher.
Knowledge can be learned alone, but skills develop-
ment needs to be guided, as do attitudinal shifts.
If we break down learning in this way, it suggests
a very in­ter­est­ing set of priorities for the teaching and
learning dynamic and how to use class time both on-
line and face-­to-­face. Courses that offload some of the
knowledge-­based learning to technology, such as the use of
flipping, can take advantage of the time saved to do deeper
learning activities related to skills and attitudes. This sug-
gests we must think about restructuring learning into
asynchronous time—­things that a kid can rehearse as
much or as l­ittle as he or she needs without teacher
supervision in their own time—­ and synchronous
time—­the “face-­to-­face” encounters ­either online or
in a regular classroom—­where teachers and students
learn together.
Figure 3.2 shows how learning objectives—­
knowledge, skills, and attitudes—­require different ac-
tivities, depending on how the objective is articulated.
Objectives exist on multiple levels in education. At
the macro level, they can relate to what a teacher’s
course does to contribute to the overall mission of a
school. At a meso level, objectives can be what a course
does to reach grade-­level standards. And at the micro
level, objectives can be stated as the teacher’s daily
44 Bringing the Neuroscience of Learning to Online Teaching

Figure 3.1. ​Learning as the Combination of Knowledge, Skills, and Attitudes

Learning (Educational)
Objectives Outcomes Competencies

Dates, facts, figures, Worth Enduring

concepts, theories, Knowing: Understanding: Values
places, rules, … Knowledge Attitudes

Important
to Know How to Do:
Skills

The ability to apply

the knowledge

Source: Author, based on Wiggins & McTighe, 2005

lesson plan. UbD’s structure and use are identical, in­de­
pen­dent of the level of planning, meaning it is a worth-
while form of thinking to habituate for any teacher.
For example, if a 1st-­grade teacher takes his objec-
tives directly from the Common Core State Standards,
then one of the given objectives his students must
learn is to “identify words and phrases in stories or
poems that suggest feelings or appeal to the senses”
(CCSS.ELA-­ LITERACY.RL.1.4, 2020). To be usable
knowledge, this standard needs to be broken down
into knowledge, skills, and attitudes.
Understand or Create the Objective
What Knowledge, Skill, and/or Attitude Is/Are
Being Targeted? H ­ umans need to understand what is
being asked of them before they can fulfill expectations.
When given a standard, teachers break it down into its
smallest parts to clarify the exact knowledge, skills, and
attitudes embedded in its description in order to then
select the best ways of evaluating and teaching. If we
use the example above of a real Common Core stan-
dard for 1st-­grade reading, the thinking pro­cess might
be something like the following.
“Identify words and phrases in STORIES OR POEMS
that suggest feelings or appeal to the senses.”
The verbs in this sentence are identify and suggest.
Skills are always expressed in verbs, so this indicates that
two of the objectives are skills. This means the teacher
has to gather evidence for the child’s ability to identify
and to suggest. Next, the evidence w ­ ill be found in both
words and phrases, and thirdly, can be found in e­ ither
STORIES OR POEMS. Fi­nally, teachers are looking for
evidence the child can identify the words that suggest
“feelings” or that appeal to the senses.
From this interpretation, the teacher realizes that
(a) he needs to mea­sure the students’ ability to identify
feeling words or sensory-­stimulating words, that (b) can
be found in both words and phrases, which are them-
selves found in (c) stories or poems. This gives her a few
 Choosing Tools 45
Figure 3.2. ​Understanding by Design
Objectives
Dates, facts, figures,
concepts, theories,
places, rules, …
What is (are) the knowledge,
Objectives skill(s), and attitude(s)
that will be achieved?
What indicators
Evaluation of success or evidence
will be accepted?
Activities, What activities,
Resources methodologies, strategies,
(Learning Events) and resources are needed?
Source: Author, based on Wiggins & McTighe, 2005
conditions to follow. First, this means feeling or sensory-­
stimulating words, or both can be included. Second, this
means she should be sure to go beyond one-­word defi-
nitions and also include phrases. And third, this means
she can choose to use stories, poems, or both.
Once a teacher understands the objective that has
been given, he can then break this into the specific
educational competencies: What knowledge, skills, and
attitudes are embodied in this standard? One kind of
knowledge appears to be knowing what qualifies as a
feeling word or sensory-­stimulating word. A skill that
is embedded in this standard is to be able to identify
­these kinds of words.
A teacher’s objectives are not ­limited to the state
standards, however. While it is not in the standard it-
self, the teacher might take advantage of the subject
­matter (feeling words), and add in attitudinal compe-
tencies as well. For example, she might have the kids
read a sentence or poem about someone who is angry,
sad, or hurt, and then work on the attitude of valuing
the role of empathy in friendships, or something simi-
lar. All of t­hese steps need to take place before the
teacher can begin to choose her evaluation tools,
which is the second step in UbD.
Learning (Educational)
Outcomes Competencies
Worth Enduring
Knowing: Understanding:
Knowledge Attitudes Values
Important
to Know How to Do:
Skills
The ability to apply
the knowledge
Diagnosis, Evaluation, and Feedback
What Is Worth Mea­sur­ing? Once the teacher has
identified the objectives, then he needs to decide what
he ­will accept as evidence that the child has achieved
them. Using the standard above, one option would be
to say that the evaluation criteria is that c­ hildren can
point to the “feeling” words and phrases in a sen-
tence, in which case she can simply use observation.
Alternatively, his criteria can be to see if the child can
explain the feeling caused by a certain word or phrase
and to say why. In that case, the teacher can use an
oral exam. In a third scenario, the teacher might de-
cide that the child needs to produce an emotion-­
evoking description or poem, in which case a writing
sample can be graded against a rubric. T ­ hese are just
three options among the likely dozens of possibilities
that exist for that single sub-­element of one literacy
requirement on the Common Core for 1st grade, and
all are legitimate interpretations of the standard.
Teachers choose how they envision fulfilling standards
by justifying their interpretations.
Teachers must make several judgment calls as they
think through all of the standards in all of the subjects
46 Bringing the Neuroscience of Learning to Online Teaching
in all of their classes. Expert teachers habituate this
pro­cess by remembering to break down standards into
their smaller parts of knowledge, skills, and attitudes
in order to develop mastery learning objectives as ex-
plained in Chapter 2. Unfortunately, rather than
gather and document evidence from observations, oral
exams, or writing examples, which are all pos­si­ble evi-
dence for the standard above, many schools privilege
timed standardized tests, which are ­limited to superfi-
cial knowledge and mea­sure few skills and no atti-
tudes at all. This single example reminds us that
evaluation is one of the most underattended areas of
teachers’ professional development and one of the
greatest opportunities in the new online modality.
The second stage of UbD is often referred to as eval-
uation, which occurs in multiple stages. The first stage
of evaluation is diagnosis: Where is the student’s starting
point? What does he already know about what I want to teach
him? A good diagnosis gives teachers a baseline against
which to mea­sure the student’s growth. Second comes
evaluation itself, which is often a quantifiable mea­sure
of how near or far a student is to the objective. Once
evaluated, a teacher can communicate this to the stu-
dent in terms of feedback, which is often shared as a
tangible recommendation of how to improve. Very ­little
time and very few courses are devoted to the complex
and intertwined role of assessment, diagnosis, evalua-
tion, and feedback, and even fewer to the dif­fer­ent tools
that are associated with each of ­these dif­fer­ent subpro­
cesses of evaluation. The right evaluation tools can only
be identified a­ fter the objectives are clear.
The choice of evaluation tools depends on the
depth of thinking a teacher reads into the Common
Core objective above; options vary based on the com-
plexity of thinking that is required. This means that in
addition to a clearly written objective, which may or
may not come from the state standards, teachers still
need to interpret the knowledge, skills, and attitudes
Table 3.1 Evaluation Tools Differ for Knowledge, Skills, and Attitudes
Knowledge Skills
Examples • Quizzes and • Tests (open-ended problems)
Tests (multiple • Demonstration
choice; fill in
• Simulation
the blank
• Project-based learning
• Case study
• Problem-based learning
• Inquiry-based learning
• E-portfolios over time
Source: Author
and then pair them with appropriate evaluation tools.
This means the interpretation of objectives is the key to
being able to deftly choose the right tool to mea­sure
student learning. This makes it clear that standards—­
which are the floors, not the ceilings, of educational
practice—do not predetermine the “best” evaluation
tools or the best classroom activities to achieve them.
Furthermore, it also makes clear that standardized tests
are rarely the correct tool, even for standardized objec-
tives. Some lucky teachers work in schools that offer
them autonomy to choose their evaluation tools, giving
them the freedom to select among dozens of options.
Expert teachers first decide the evaluation criteria
for the objective, then decide on the activity and/or
resource that best serves that purpose. The design of
learning events and the tools they require is the last of
the three steps in UbD needed before ­actual teaching
begins.
ACTIVITIES AND RESOURCES
The tools, activities, and resources teachers use to cre-
ate meaningful and joyful learning events in their
classrooms are driven by the objectives they identify as
well as by the evaluation criteria they decide ­will be
used to mea­ sure advances t­oward the objectives
(Wiggins & McTighe, 1998). In­de­pen­dent of the mo-
dality—100% online, blended, hybrid, or 100% face-­
to-­face—it is impor­tant to recognize that teachers have
many more teaching tool options than in traditional,
pre-­pandemic classrooms (Tavakoli et al., 2020). It is
likely that if asked in the past, good teachers would be
able to share a proven list of favorite activities they
used year a­ fter year. Now, given the quick shift to on-
line learning, many teachers have now been exposed
to numerous new teaching tools in a very short
amount of time, complicating their choices.
Attitudes
• Observation over time
• Thinking Routines (“I used to think . . . ​
Now I think . . .”)
• Collaborative activities (debate, group
projects, discussion)
• Journaling
 Choosing Tools 47

How Do Teachers Choose Learning Events, attitudinal objectives be integrated into my knowledge and
Activities, and Resources? skills objectives? The answers to these questions are
complicated by the sheer number of digital educa-
To go online, there are two major kinds of decisions tional resources that combine with traditional tools
that have to made. First (Figure 3.3), the school needs to yield hundreds of choices for every objective a
to choose a learning management system (LMS), video teacher can identify. This can often feel overwhelm-
conferencing software, and for those who are thinking ing, but there are some clear guidelines that can help
about flipping their lessons, video recording software. make this more manageable.
Second (Figure 3.4), teachers need to choose the right
tools, including digital educational resources, to exe- The Myriad of Options
cute their plan based on their objectives.
Once the teacher has the learning objectives There are exponentially more options available online
clear (often state standards, school curriculum, com- than ever before in this history of face-to-face school-
bined with the school mission), and the decision ing, and the number of inventions of new apps, games,
about the platform (which is often chosen by the in- and learning platforms grows each year (Luo et al.,
stitution and not the individual teacher), then the 2020). Rather than the simple choice between two or
creative input of teachers comes into play. What com- three different publishers’ textbooks, teachers now
bination of tools is the best to reach the objectives? How can have choices that are likely 10 to 1,000 times more
I keep students focused and engaged? How can my numerous than they have ever experienced thanks to

Figure 3.3. Learning Management Systems, Video Conferencing, and Video Recording Tools

Airhead NEO Paradiso Congrea Desire 2 Learn (D2L) Newro Showbie Seesaw ezTalksWebinar Collaborize Classroom
Learn Cube Schoolology
Adobe Connect Talent Beaincert Synap Edsby EducationForFree Google Classroom Easy Class
Samba Live ElectaLive TutorRoom
Teach:able Adaptive Nearpod Sakai Piazza Yahoo Groups
Canvas EDMODO
Udemy ThinkWave VEDAMO Stoodle Pro Profs
BlackBoard Foundry College
BlezGo *RCampus Thinkifi
WhizIQ Moodle
PA
I D EE
Learning Management FR
PA System (LMS)
I D EE
FR Zoho Blizz Captura
Piazza Sony Vegas Pro TouchCast

TOOLS
ren ci n g

Screencast-o-matic ScreenFlow/Telestream TeamViewer AnyMeeting

Vi d e o

n fe
Re

Movavi Academic Final Cut Pro Apache Open Meetings Pexip

c

di
Co
or

Moovly ng o Star Leaf

V ide
SchoolTube HippoVideo WeVideo UberConference BigBlueButton
Pinnacle HighFive GoogleHangouts
PAID
FREE

Camtasia Animoto ThinkLink Mikogo MeetFox

Placit Ezwid Wikimaker ReadyTalk Remo Zoom
AnimkaerEdify MySimpleShow GoBoard Skype
Filmora EdPuzzle Cinelera LiveStorm GSuite Whereby
Powtoon Flixtime Loom Kizoa SamePage
ExplainEverything Flex Clip PlayPosit iMovie Fuze EasyMeeting Vidyo GoToMeeting
Quik Blender Flipgrid AmazonChime
LightMV Renderforest Windows Movie Maker JoinMe AvenoCam BlueJeans WebEx

Source: Author
48 Bringing the Neuroscience of Learning to Online Teaching
digital resource expansion. In a one-­day search for
­free EdTech tools, we found more than 600 ­free offer-
ings. This means that choosing tools has become as
complicated as g­oing to the supermarket and being
faced with an entire aisle of dogfood. How do teachers
make the best choice? Which are the top options out t­here?
Where is the logical starting point? To make this easier to
sift through, I would like to suggest a taxonomy to
order the digital educational resources by type (see
Figure 3.4).
The choice is actually simpler than we’d think:
Teachers should choose the tool based on the
learning objective. As we take a tour of the many
tools available, teachers should think about a specific
learning objective they have, and consider which of
the following choices best meets their needs. To justify
choices, administrators are invited to review Appendix
A, which is a rubric we made on how to choose good
resources based on the criteria from five international
studies.
The Tools: Types of Digital Educational Resources
Digital educational resources can be divided into (a)
websites and platforms; (b) apps; (c) games; (d) pod-
casts; (f) software; (g) multicourse platforms. The type
of resource is of less importance than their uses, how-
ever. That is, one would not choose a game just
­because it is a game, but rather b
­ ecause it helps achieve
the objective better than other software, apps, or old-­
fashioned pen-­and-­paper worksheets. A brief descrip-
tion of the subtypes of each digital educational resource
is listed below.
With such a ­ great number of options, teachers
need to carefully select which of the resources best re-
spond to their objectives. To find the right combina-
tion of options, teachers and students can run a search
like the one in T ­ able 3.2.
It is impor­tant to keep in mind who w ­ ill use the
resource (grade level); what kind of tool they want
(app or other­wise); when the resource w ­ ill be used
(synchronous or asynchronously); and why they ­will
use the resource (as a supplement to regular work, as
homework, as a class activity)?
Websites and Platforms. Websites can be divided
into five main types. A huge time-­saver is the use of
websites that have prestructured prepared lessons
(e.g., Khan Acad­emy), which offer complete lessons
on specific topics, normally or­ga­nized by subject area
and ranging from preK to university content.
Others websites are repositories (e.g., National
­ American poetry, for example), and a single sub-­
Geographic Education, NPS News, Storyline Online,
TIME for Kids, Smithsonian Open Access), which
­house dozens of resources with lesson plans, or­ga­nized
by topics. ­These are amazing resources for teachers
willing to take “virtual field trips” with their class and
can be used from 2nd grade through university.
Other websites are designed around teacher tips
(e.g., ­Simple K-12, Teacher Planet, Teach Hub, Library
of Congress Teacher Tips, Annenberg Classroom) and
give teacher-­to-­teacher advice. Many of t­ hese are run
by consortiums of teacher groups and/or homeschool-
ing websites and offer complete lesson plans on e­ very
academic subject K–12, as well as additional tips for
educators working with adult learners.
A fourth category of websites are ­those that are
based on specific subjects, which reinforce skills in all
school subjects (e.g., Sesame Street Makes ­Music,
Scrivener, Matific, Digital Literacy, Facing History).
These subject-­
­ specific websites are g­reat comple-
mentary resources for preK–12 teachers who already
have a ­great class plan and are looking for comple-
mentary ways to reinforce objectives. ­There are also
excellent websites to reinforce basic values and char-
acters of good citizens (e.g., Character Counts!)
aimed at the PreK–4th-­grade crowd that are very
popu­lar.
A fifth and final categorization are t­hose websites
designed to promote specific methodologies or over-
arching goals, such as collaboration, research, or higher-­
order thinking skills (Defined Learning [project-­based
learning]; Collaborize Classroom Repository [collabora-
tion activities]). ­These websites are ­great for teachers
who have chosen to emphasize how to think, rather
than just content knowledge, and are most appropriate
for ­middle to high school learners.
Apps. Another kind of digital tool are apps, short
for digital application. The key to choosing the right
app is to remember that no app can “improve math”
as a ­whole, but rather only sub-­elements of it. For
example, for primary school, ­there are apps to help
with learning addition (e.g., Hungry Fish), the multi-
plication ­table (e.g., ThinkingBlocks), and m­ iddle and
high school geometry (e.g., Geogebra), all sub-­
elements of math, but none claim to improve all areas
of math. E ­ very sub-­ element of e­very domain area
(math, language, science, art, history, physical educa-
tion, and so on) is structured by multiple neural net-
works, each of which needs a dif­ fer­
ent kind of
stimulation triggered by dif­ fer­
ent activities and re-
hearsal (Tokuhama-­Espinosa, 2015b). Most apps are
limited/dedicated to a single subject area (like
element of that subject (like the Accent Kit to perfect
Figure 3.4. ​A Taxonomy of Digital Educational Resources

Stanford University UC Berkeley CalTech

Harvard University
U Texas, Wellesley
Peer to Peer University
The Great Courses
LinkedIn Learning
Open Classrooms
Georgetown UPenn
Coursera EdX MIT
Subject Sesame Street Makes Music; Scrivener;
Matific; Digital Literacy; Facing History
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
Harvard University Extension School Teacher tips Simple K-12; Teacher Planet; Teach Hub;
Library of Congress Teacher Tips; Annenberg
University of Pennsylvania
Northwestern University Repositories National Geographic Smithsonian Open Access

Canvas Network University of Chicago

Open Learning Princeton University Methodologies Defined Learning [project-based learning];

Collaborate Classroom Repository
Future Learn Columbia University

Open SAP Stanford University Prepared lessons Power HomeSchool; Khan Academy; EdGenuity;
CTC Math Curriculum; K-12.com;
Kadenza Yale University Get Ready 4 Kindergarten for home schoolers
Udacity Duke

Iversity MOOCs
Udemy ICT, Communication, Digital Digital Citizenry
Literacy, Computer Science
Allison
University-credit courses Art, Modern Art, Photography, Garage Band;
Painting and Drawing, Design, My Modern MET
Sculpture, Contemporary Art,
SurveyMonkey Music
TurnItIn Multi-Course Websites Math, Magnitude, Numeracy, Tiggly Math;
For All Rubrics Surveys Platforms Subtraction, Addition, Division, Geogebra,
Plagiarism Multiplication, Algebra, Photomath
Coggle Colla-borative Geometry, Calculus, Game
Mind Maps Assessment
Theory, Statistics
Collaboration
Prezi
Presentations History, Art History, Ancient My Histro
Creaza Digital stories Software TOOLS Apps History, Modern History, Social
Transcription Studies, Civilizations, Law,
Otter.ai Civics, Politics
Whiteboards
A Web Whiteboard
Blog writing
Science, Biology, Chemistry, High Adventure
KidBlog Research Physics, Genetics, Engineering, Science
Zotero Writing Enviromental Science,
Podcast Games Epidemiology, Computer
Microsoft Notepad Engineering, Astronomy,
Coding, Information Theory
and Signal Processing

Discovery World Service On Being Language, Alfabet, Phonics, StarFall;

Revolution Health Radio
The Knowledge Project
Stuff You Should Know
Rationally Speaking
Reading, Writing, Handwriting Hemingway Editor;
Hackable General Knowledge and Keyboarding, Literature, Book Creator
Brain Science Stories, Essays, Bi- and
Edmentum; Quizflix Multilingualism, Literary
Song Exploder Genres, Children’s Literature,
The Radio Lab Foreign Languages

This American Life Subject Specific

Revisionist History; Health, Yoga and Meditation, GoNoodle;
Philosophize This! Hardcore History; Mental Well-Being, Public Smash Your Food
TheMemory Palace Math Snacks; Health, Physical Well-Being
Ted Talks Daily Field, Sleep, Nutrition
State Stakes;
The History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps NASA’s Kids’ Club
Physical Education, Dance, Dance Maker
Track and Field, Basketball,
SEL, Team Work Baseball, Wrestling, Football,
Soccer, Swimming
Thinking, Planning, Strategy
SuperBetter; The Social Express;
Gracie & Friends Birthday Café;
Smiling Mind; Classcraft; ZooU; SuperWhy; Minecraft; Creativity Hub;
Ripple Effexts Sim City; Whyville

Source: Author

49
50 Bringing the Neuroscience of Learning to Online Teaching

Table 3.2. How to Search for Free Digital Educational Resources

1. Decide on your Example: Use the quadratic formula
educational objective. [understand literary devices] [value team
work] [sing the alphabet]
2. Create a mind-map by WHAT will be learned? Quadrac formula

putting the objective in WHO will use the tool 8th graders

the middle and listing as WHAT modality or type All digital resources
of tool? (Apps, Games, Websites)
many related words, HOW will the tool be

synonyms, and important

contracted (free, by school
or by individual user)
Topic FREE
Topic
WHEN (synchronous or
characteristics as possible. asynchronous) will the tool
be used?
Asynchronous

Remember to use “who,” WHY will the tool be used

WHERE will the tool be used Complement regular
“what,” “when,” (reinforcement, remediaon,
or new competency) (installed on the LMS or homework Students’ personal devices
individual student devices)
“where,” “why,” and
“how,” guidelines.
3. Open a search engine.
Enter keywords from
mind map, putting the
most important word
first. Use quotation marks
( “ “ ) to offset terms that
must be included.
4. Review options, prioritizing recommendations from other teachers.

5. Pilot test choices with a small group of your students.

Source: Author.

a foreign accent). Like all digital resources, t­here are
some apps that are f­ ree and o
­ thers that have a monthly
or one-­time payment. To respond to the needs of all
learners in class, teachers can prioritize their search
by apps that have no cost to students, or that are paid
for by schools.
To choose the right app, teachers can ask them-
selves if they are looking in a specific subject area, and
if so, what sub-­domain? Some of our early childhood
educators said they found success with apps like Tiggly
Math for counting and numeracy. Primary school
teachers like apps such as Fraction Math and favorites
like Geogebra, which can be used as early as student
interest piques throughout high school. Other apps for
geometry (e.g., Cyberchase Shape Quest!) and algebra
(e.g., Wolfram Algebra Course Assistant) vary based on
secondary goals of being fun or of meeting standards.
Students looking for help understanding the
solution steps in any math problem, including
calculus, love Photomath. Kids scan an equation
and within seconds, Photomath shows the work
leading to the solution.
Depending on what sub-­domain of math and what
level of understanding, dif­fer­ent apps ­will be more ap-
propriate. To narrow down their search, teachers can
open a browser and insert carefully chosen key words
as explained in ­Table 3.2.
Similarly, if a teacher needs a language app, they
should be very clear about what sub-­domain, and what
age they are interested in. This can include early child-
hood learning of the alphabet (e.g., Fish School 123
ABC for Kids), phonics for young readers (e.g., StarFall),
or reading practice (e.g., BobBooksReading), among
other topics. If the objective is to jump-­start writing, us-
ing audio transcription apps like Audio Note might help.
Quick writing synthesis can be facilitated by Back
Channel Chat, and to refine formal writing, high school
teachers speak highly of Hemingway Editor. Language
skills can also focus on spelling, (e.g., Vocabulary Spelling
City), just as they can be on conversation skills for so-
cially awkward kids (e.g., Conversation Planner), or to
celebrate finished written work (e.g., Book Creator).
Many of the teachers we worked with
enthusiastically recommended apps that read stories
 Choosing Tools 51
aloud to infants through middle school. These apps
are often read by famous actors, and they assist
parents, are entertaining, and cover a range of
topics. Some favorites include SpeakaBoos, epic!,
and Storyline Online.
The ability to choose the right activity lies in the
quality of the teacher’s knowledge of her subject and its
sub-­domain areas. As mentioned in the introduction, a
teacher’s subject-­area knowledge is vital to being able to
diagnose a learner’s difficulties. This means that saying a
child has a “language prob­lem” is not enough; precision
is key to choosing the right intervention. This is just like
­going to the doctor; a good diagnosis is half the cure.
A good doctor would never say you have a “throat prob­
lem”; she would say you have the flu, strep throat,
throat cancer, or another more detailed analy­sis so you
can choose the right intervention. For teachers, a good
diagnosis ­will help us choose the right evaluation and
teaching tools. For example, teachers can use key words
such as “reading fluency for second-­language learners”
or “vocabulary building for teen­agers” in their searches
to hone in on specific student needs. This is a good start,
but ­will still yield millions of results. G ­ reat teachers
know how to further limit the search by adding on the
type of tool they prefer (e.g., “­free apps” or “multiplayer
games,” or “games”), when they w ­ ill use the tool (e.g.,
“asynchronous homework,” “in-­class rehearsal”), and
why they ­will use the tool (e.g., “remediation,” “extra
practice,” “teach Common Core Standard X”).
­There are apps for ­every subject ­matter and doz-
ens of sub-­domains within each. Some examples in-
clude foreign language.
Many teachers and even some school districts
recommend Duolingo for foreign-language
learning. In some places, this is a complement to
classes, and in other cases, replaces the class
entirely when the desired language is not offered at
the school.
Other apps exist for history (e.g., MyHistro) and
science (e.g., High-­Adventure Science). ­Music teach-
ers we worked with said that even before the pan-
demic they used apps like Garage Band, and art
teachers made use of painting apps like My Modern
MET and design apps like OK Go Sandbox. T ­ here are
also apps for physical activity, including dance (e.g.,
Dance Maker), and nutrition (e.g., Smash Your Food),
as well as for ­mental health, including mindful medi-
tation (e.g., Go Noodle) and social–­emotional learning
(e.g., How Would you Feel If. . . .). ­There are also nu-
merous apps related to STEM and STEAM activities
like coding (e.g., Code​.­org; Hopscotch), engineering
(e.g., Crazy Gears, Inventioneers, Gizmos & Gadgets),
and robotics (e.g., The Robot Factory by Tinybop). Fi­
nally, ­there are apps that teach the new literacies, in-
cluding digital literacy (e.g., Digital Citizenry). It is
likely that if you can articulate the objective, you can
find an app, which is why precise key word choice is
so impor­tant during the search.
T­ here are also apps to increase access for t­ hose
­children living in remote areas. For example, Hoopla
and Overdrive offer access to ­free online libraries to
anyone with a library card. This gives kids in poorer
communities a leg up on accessing more learning
tools, and opens a child to the world of reading and
joy of stories even if they do not live near a library.
­There are more f­ ree apps than any other modality
of digital resource.
Games. One of the fastest-­growing areas of educa-
tional technology, or EdTech, is gamification (Markets
and Markets, 2020), in which ­people learn while play-
ing on a digital platform. The concept ­behind learning
through games hinges on algorithms for motivation.
­People like to win, but not too easily, and they ­don’t
like to lose too much. Educational games that keep
­people motivated to play longer have a greater chance
of strengthening neural networks for memory, and
therefore learning, due to repetition. This is based on
the “Mario concept” as I like to call it. Mario, one of
the oldest and most played games in history, works us-
ing challenges spread out over multiple levels. The al-
gorithm adjusts to make the questions harder if the
person begins to win too much, and easier if the per-
son begins to lose too much. The key is to get p ­ eople to
play longer (rehearse more) by meeting the challenges
of one level, then the next, u ­ ntil mastery is achieved
in a specific skill-­set area. Using gamification is a ­great
choice, especially where healthy competition is ac-
cepted and if motivation is a challenge.
There are games that cover general knowledge
­
and multiple subjects, (e.g., Edmentum), which are
fantastic for warming up students to the vast range of
­things to learn about the universe. ­There are also games
specifically related to a par­tic­u­lar topic. MathSnacks,
for example, is made up of “Smart educational anima-
tions, games, and interactive tools that help mid-­
school learners better understand math concepts”
52 Bringing the Neuroscience of Learning to Online Teaching
(https://­mathsnacks​.­com​/­) that began as a National
Science Foundation–­supported proj­ect. T ­ here are also
games to teach geography (e.g., Stake the States), his-
tory (e.g., Civilization), science (e.g., Toca Lab, Legends
of Learning), biology (e.g., Animal Genius), and as-
tronomy (e.g., NASA’s Kids Club). G ­ reat teachers can
easily find K–2 science games by typing intuitive words
(e.g., “games to learn about caterpillars”). One of my fa-
vorites is GeoKids games, which kids K–5 enthusiasti-
cally play thanks to the g­ reat design and animation,
and which teachers love for its accurate scientific con-
tent. ­There are games for language (e.g., Epic!), as well
as lit­er­a­ture (e.g., Book Worm), and ­those for phonics
(e.g., Reader Rabbit), vocabulary (e.g., Random Name/
Word Picker), and spelling (e.g., Spelling Challenges).
Additionally, t­here are many games for language that
are meant to support English-­language learners, which
are actually ­great for all learners and often better de-
signed b ­ ecause they explic­itly teach points of gram-
mar; for example, Kloo, and the foreign-­ language
edition of Scrabble. ­There are also games for coding
(e.g., Codaquest), and design (e.g., Crazy Machines),
as well as games to motivate creativity (e.g., Creativity
Hub), critical thinking (e.g., SuperWhy), and strategy
and planning skills (e.g., Minecraft). Gaming also ex-
tends into social–­emotional learning, and includes the
development of social skills (e.g., Gracie & Friends
Birthday Café), and games for confidence building for
artistic expression (e.g., Drawn to Life) and for
­handling emotions. Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood was a
very popu­lar game with our early childhood teachers.
Aside from content knowledge, ­there are games that
push creative thinking and problem-­solving skills (e.g.,
Sim City, Whyville), which ­middle schoolers through
university students find fascinating. ­There are other
games that encourage hands-on play (e.g., Osmo), and
that let imaginations soar and invite kids to create
their own characters (e.g., Poptropica), or to collabo-
rate to achieve together more than they might achieve
alone (e.g., R ­ ipple Effects).
The best way to find good games is to conduct a
search that includes not only the knowledge area or
objective, but also the age range of the students in-
volved, as well as secondary objectives, such as moti-
vation or collaboration: “games that motivate reading
out loud in third graders.” For example, if a teacher
has an objective to improve cooperation in her 8th-­
grade class, she can search for the key words “­free
games,” “teen­agers,” “collaboration and cooperation.”
This ­will lead her to the UNICEF Kid Power website
with eight recommended games that include Escape
Game, Murder Mystery, and ­Silent Line Up, or to the
TeachThought website that promotes 10 dif­ fer­
ent
games such as Minefield, A Shrinking Vessel, and Go
for the Gold, among 4 million other results.
The search for the perfect digital resource often
means:
1. Doing an initial search online based on key
words and priorities (see Table 3.2);
2. Assessing what others say about suggestions
by reading teacher blogs;
3. Test piloting the resource on a smaller
group;
4. Trying out the resource on the larger group;
5. Getting student evaluations of the efficacy of
the resource. Continue use if they like it; look
for another source if they do not.
To further improve the se­ lection of resources,
teachers also need to be aware of their secondary ob-
jectives. Is the goal individual practice or group work? Is the
student meant to use the resource during class, or in their
own time? (Apps are ­great for in­de­pen­dent asynchro-
nous work, while games are good for group play, both
synchronously and asynchronous.) Is pro­gress advance-
ment impor­tant to rec­ord, and must it be linked automati-
cally in your LMS? (All digital resources track advances,
but some are easier to document than ­others as they
can plug into the LMS.) Is this resource meant to comple-
ment or replace the teacher? (Some digital educational
resources are used as the primary resource, while
­others are meant to complement teacher lessons.)
Podcasts. Podcasts are another digital tool that
has become extremely popu­lar among learners, pri-
marily b­ ecause they only involve listening. It is not
uncommon to see students “connected” to their head-
sets, tuned into talks on a large variety of topics led
by experts. Podcasts, like the other digital tools, span
the gamut of subjects normally found and school,
and then some. Podcasts like The Knowledge Proj­ect,
Stuff You Should Know, The Radio Lab, and TEDTalks
Daily tantalize learners’ imaginations with the broad
range of questions and quirky facts that exist in the
world. ­ Others cover specific subjects, like history
(e.g., Hardcore History), philosophy (i.e., Philosophize
This!), science (Discovery World Ser­vice of the BBC),
or health (e.g., Revolution Health Radio). Other pod-
casts are dedicated to general well-­being (e.g., On
Being), or to learning more about how the brain
learns (e.g., Brain Science). Podcasts are modern ra-
dio, with the exception that ­there are literally thou-
sands of options, rather than a few dozen available.
While it is common to think of podcasts for adult au-
diences, t­here are hundreds of thousands made
 Choosing Tools 53
especially for the youn­gest of ­children upward. Sparkle
Stories, Extra Blurt, Earth Rangers, and Goodnight
Stories for Rebel Girls are just a handful of podcasts
recommended by KidLit Radio, for example. WIRED
has a list of “The Best Kids’ Podcasts for Sheltering in
Place,” which cater mainly to the ­ middle school
crowd, while the New York Times recently published
“A Big List of Podcasts for ­Little Kids” aimed at the 2
through 6 audience.
To find podcasts related to a specific subject, teach-
ers can search their browser for key words in the same
way as mentioned for other tools (­Table 3.2), but add
on the word “podcast.” For example, if a teacher has
an objective that he wants his students to love chem-
istry as a part of everyday life, he can search for the
key words “­free podcast” “chemistry,” which ­will lead
him to the Royal Society’s ­free podcast series called
Periodic ­Table, to the 10 Best Science Podcasts of the
ReAgent Chemical Ser­ vices and Stereo Chemistry
Podcast of the American Chemical Society, as well as
24 million other results.
Software. Another kind of tool that teachers can
employ is software. While most of the other digital re-
sources are useful in individualizing homework, most
software is helpful in saving teachers time in planning
and grading. This gets to a fundamentally riveting
finding: If leveraged well, technology and digital edu-
cational resources allow more time to interact more
personally with students. Software allows teachers to
use their time with their students in a more personal-
ized, ­human way.
There is software to detect plagiarism such as
­ nered with local (community) colleges to do this at
TurnItIn, which teachers love as it turns this odious
task over to a machine and puts the responsibility in
the hands of the student. Other software helps design
and conduct surveys (e.g., SurveyMonkey), and facili-
tate assessment (e.g., ForAllRubrics). ­ There is also
software to help students work together (e.g., Coggle
Collaborative Mind Maps), make pre­sen­ta­tions (e.g.,
Prezi), create digital stories (e.g., Creaza), and write
blogs (e.g., KidBlog).
Many software options are excellent for attending
to special needs. ­There is software to help the hearing
impaired, such as voice-­to-­text software (e.g., Converse
Smartly. Microsoft Dictate), second-­language learners
(e.g., Google Translate, S ­imple En­ glish Wikipedia),
and ­those who need extra support through live tran-
scription ser­vices (e.g., Otter.ai). An in­ter­est­ing find is
that when we installed subtitles on our videos for a
deaf student in our Harvard class, we found that all
students benefited. This is true for most accommoda-
tions: What helps special needs helps every­one. Careful
readers ­ will see how this complements Universal
Design for Learning mentioned in Chapter 2.
Software can also facilitate student and teacher re-
search (e.g., Zotero), writing pro­cesses (e.g., Microsoft
Note­pad), and shared repre­sen­ta­tion of information
through white boards (e.g., A Web Whiteboard). Most
software comes with a fee, but for many, the time that
is freed up is worth ­every penny. ­Great teachers often
make recommendations to their schools to make ­these
purchases, though some are f­ree or available at a low
monthly cost of just a few dollars.
Multicourse Platforms. Multicourse platforms of-
ten look like multiple websites rolled into a single
page. Multicourse platforms are accessed using a URL
(uniform resource locator), just like a website, but
they normally offer many more ser­vices, such as a se-
ries of short classes, blogs, and hyperlinks to other
webpages. Most multicourse platforms are sponsored
by a single organ­ization, often a university or a K–12
institution that charges for individual courses, or plat-
forms like Udemy, which serve professional develop-
ment needs. Most of ­these platforms cater to students
from the 6th grade and up. Just as in all learning con-
texts, the quality of ­these digital educational resources
depends on many f­actors, not the least of which are
the learning objectives and the quality of the teacher.
Some high schools have de­cided that one of the
best ways for their students to return to school is hav-
ing them learn from home by taking classes at their
local universities online, which can be found on t­ hese
multicourse platforms. Some high schools have part-
low or no cost; in other situations, families bear the
costs and have convinced the schools simply to give
credit for this. In a third scenario, u­ nder state home-
schooling laws, students’ families pay for the univer-
sity courses and get both high school graduation credit
and college credit.
­Others have seen the cost benefits of taking ­free,
open online massive courses (MOOCs) through multi-
course platforms like Coursera and EdEx. ­There is no
age limit to ­these courses, and registration generally
requires ­little more than an email address. MOOCs are
generally ­free but may charge if learners want a cer-
tificate of completion or transcript once they finish.
Some MOOCs have the added benefit of earning stu-
dents college credits. Other universities offer ­ free
courses, including most of the Ivy Leagues.
Yet other multicourse platforms offer a ­free ser­vice
of curating a long list of courses of a certain type. For
example, Open Culture is a website that dedicates it-
self to listing ­free and open education and lists courses
54 Bringing the Neuroscience of Learning to Online Teaching
currently being offered at the university level. The
Open University in the United Kingdom offers some
courses ­free of charge, as do Udacity and LinkedIn
Learning. To find a multicourse page or any of the
other digital resources, teachers (and students!) can
follow the five steps in ­Table 3.2.
MOOCs and Webinars. A word of advice about
MOOCs is warranted h ­ ere. MOOCs do not have a very
high rate of completion and require a ­great deal of
self-­motivation to complete (Mehrabi et al., 2020).
This is very dif­fer­ent from well-­run online university
courses, which offer high levels of learner interaction
and give quality feedback (Pan & Shao, 2020). MOOCs
and good online courses are also dif­fer­ent from a third
category of online class, the webinar. Webinars, like
MOOCs, are also low interaction and offer ­little or no
feedback to students, and they do not usually offer the
chance to give feedback to the presenters or instructor,
nor is ­there space for follow-up questions if the learner
is left hanging on an unclear idea. However, they are
about as effective as traditional face-­to-­face trainings
(Gegenfurtner & Ebner, 2019). This is all to say that
dif­fer­ent types of online courses yield dif­fer­ent experi-
ences and quality of learning. ­There are at least 40 ma-
jor differences between a MOOC and the well-­designed
online courses (see Appendix B).
Learning Analytics. Learning analytics can be
used to predict student learning outcomes, within limits.
Analytics are based on big data, or meta-­data analy­sis,
and are beginning to be used more widely in universi-
ties, and just starting to be introduced in K–12 settings
(Baker et al., 2018). Data is collected on students and
then analyzed to predict outcomes with the hope of
serving as a kind of “safety net” to anticipate prob­lems
(Ifenthaler et al., 2019). Universities use this data in
hopes of preventing dropouts. For example, if an insti-
tution establishes that first-­ year students who join
clubs, eat regularly, and visit the library at least three
times in a semester are more likely to do well and ad-
vance to the second semester, then it can track students
based on t­ hese par­ameters. Universities often track stu-
dents via their university ID card or phone to see how
often they tap into the club headquarters, the cafeteria,
and library. Students who d ­ on’t do this enough can be
contacted by counselors for a check-in. Other univer-
sities have regular “well-­being” check-­ins with stu-
dents, which remind them about deadlines (payment
dates, clinic checkups), as well as to do their steps (phys-
ical movement), and to do compassion meditation.
However, data is data, and can never fully interpret
­human behavior. While at a large educational tech-
nology conference in 2019, one com­pany confessed
that their data could be used to “redline” minority stu-
dents who might not follow the same patterns for eat-
ing and studying as other students. In fact, one student
was called by a counselor and told he was on the path
to failure as he was Black, ­didn’t go to the cafeteria
enough, and had never visited the library. While he
could not do much about being Black, he had a kitchen
in his housing unit and all of his books ­were online.
The data is only as good as the ­people who interpret it.
While ­there are multiple learning analytics that
work through devices like ID cards or phones, ­there
are also learning analytics within each LMS. ­These
programs tell the user information about the big data
stored on the virtual course platform, ­either at an indi-
vidual level or on the level of all of the students’ use.
This means teachers can know how many times the
entire class got a specific quiz question wrong and go
back and re­adjust teaching or improve the wording of
the quiz. It also means that the teacher can see just
how long a student spent on any given resource page,
and how many documents ­ were downloaded. This
permits the teacher to gain insights about both the
group as well as about individual needs. At a third
level, course analytics can tell the teacher which pages
­were visited with the most frequency, which w ­ ere and
never opened, and how many classes a student at-
tended, if LMS is integrated with the teleconferencing
tool. Which can give insight into the ­actual instruc-
tional design and layout of the course itself. Most
LMSs also have embedded learning analytics. Teachers
can see how many minutes students spend on each
page, which documents ­were up-­or downloaded, and
how many times a student attempted to do quiz ques-
tions. LMSs also track homework submissions to the
minute and offer daily, weekly, and monthly summa-
ries of this data.
Teacher access to analytical data. Data analytics
on LMSs are vis­i­ble on the teacher view of the course
page but not in the students’ view. This information is
collected by the platform itself and teachers do not
have to set up anything, but they do need to learn
how to access the data, usually by clicking a button on
the home page. Analytics can show a variety of data,
including how well the group submits a homework as-
signment on time, the average test score on a quiz, and
the total number of posts on a discussion board.
Analytics can also show individual student data by as-
signment, and show the student’s estimated grade
based on completed work at any stage of the course.
To use the analytics, most teachers watch a training
video, or receive professional development from the
platform operators.
 Choosing Tools 55
Communication. Communication tools are also
impor­tant for teachers to consider. While the same tra-
ditional methods of communication remain (newslet-
ters, emails, announcements), ­there are also a myriad
of new digital communication tools, which reach all
stakeholders in the learning pro­cess. ­There are web-
sites, apps, and platforms that help students, parents,
and teachers all share information. Tools like Join Our
Class, NEO, Seesaw, Bloomz, and Flipgrid share stu-
dent pro­gress, class proj­ects, and learning pro­cesses
with parents, and invite them to play a more promi-
nent role in student learning. Traditional communica-
tion tools are often built into the LMS, such as email
and announcements. Careful teachers confine chan-
nels of communication to the LMS to avoid use of so-
cial media or other personal tools.
Teachers’ Professional Development. Fi­nally,
t­here are additional tools that can be used to help
teachers’ professional development in tech training
and ­others in pedagogy, ­whether this is initiated in­de­
pen­ dently or or­ga­
nized by the learning institution.
­There are multiple webpages sponsored by interna-
tional, national, state, and local organ­ izations that
provide high-­quality, ­free support to educators. Some
notable examples include Annenberg Classroom,
Connections: The Learning Sciences Platform,
EDUTOPIA, FutureLearn, Lessoncast, National Center
for Teacher Professional Development, Prodigy
Teachers Professional Development, Teacher​ .­
Org,
TeacherEdOnline, Teacher Thought, Teacher Tube,
Teaching Channel, and TED Ed. ­These sites and plat-
forms have been developed to offer f­ree options to
teachers who cannot afford to go to expensive confer-
ences, who are, unfortunately, the majority of public
school teachers. As the vast majority of ­these are web-
sites, they are listed ­under the websites in the Taxonomy.
One category of digital educational resource not
included in the Taxonomy is virtual real­ity (VR), the
main reason being that t­ here are no f­ ree options avail-
able, yet. While VR and AR (augmented real­ity) tools
are amazing and offer multiple learning experiences,
such as working in “a million-­dollar lab” like Labster
(labster​.­com), the costs of ­these tools prohibit use by
most students. If readers have the bud­get, they are en-
couraged to do their own search following the steps in
­Table 3.2, and add in key words like “virtual real­ity” or
“augmented real­ity.”
This broad variety of tools means that as we move
online, we have to use backward design more than ever
to have clear objectives in mind before we try to navi-
gate the crowded ­waters of resource options. The move
to an online modality is an opportunity to rethink how
we can now reach the same or better/harder goals in
education using a broader range of tools.
THE BUFFET OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY:
CHOOSE WISELY
The all-­you-­can-­eat buffet is an American favorite. As
a culture, we love variety, abundance, and a good deal.
But one has to approach the buffet with a good strat-
egy. When you are faced with so much choice and
tasty options, your first instinct might be to pile one of
each item on your plate in order to get your ­money’s
worth, and to try it all. This means the mashed pota-
toes and the Jell-­O can invade each other’s space, and
that you are likely to suffer indigestion for your
gluttony.
When moving online, teachers are also faced with
a buffet of options. Since the COVID-19 crisis when
every­one started working and schooling from home,
teachers ­were overwhelmed by the numerous possi-
bilities of hardware, software, plug-­ ins, and apps
whose promotional ads flood email in-­boxes. This buf-
fet must also be approached with caution. Trying out
­every ­free game or video-­making software is not the
best way to use our time in ­these pressured planning
days. Rather, teachers should use the same caution as
with the all-­ you-­can-­ eat buffet. Choose carefully.
Serve yourself moderately. Balance the plate with nu-
tritious, not only savory, treats.
In summary, let’s look at all of this in terms of
choices at dif­fer­ent stages of planning. To begin to go
online successfully, you w ­ ill need to have a solid LMS
(learning management system). This ­will be the plat-
form on which you ­will build your online class, share
resources, and collect homework. Additionally, you’ll
need a video conferencing tool. This ­will be the way
you ­will meet with your students synchronously. You
only need one LMS and one video conferencing tool.
Once you have ­these two core ele­ments, you can be-
gin to build your online class (see Figure 3.5).
­After choosing the LMS and video conferencing,
you can begin to think of the course objectives, how
you ­will mea­sure them, and the precise activities and
resources needed. If you want to differentiate for all
learners, you ­will have to pile your plate full of options
that ­will permit learners to have multiple entry points
to the material, as wide-­ranging as the students in the
class. Similarly, you w ­ ill have to think about broaden-
ing traditional evaluation tools, which likely means
trying a dish you have never had before. In order to
reach your objectives, you w ­ ill have to choose care-
fully. It’s easy to be attracted by the frosting and colors
 Figure 3.5. ​Phase 1: Preplanning for Your Online Class

1. PRE-PLANNING

I love technology and want to be Which one? Adobe Connect Mikogo

part of the modern world. AmazonChime Pexip
AdaptiveU Moodle AnyMeeting ReadyTalk
My school might be closed Adobe Connect Newrow Apache Open Meetings Remo
because of the virus. Blackboard Paradiso LMS AvenoCam SamePage
BlezGo ProProfs BigBlueButton SkypeForBusiness
I want better accountability BrainCert SambaLive Blizz StarLeaf
for student work. Canvas SimTek BlueJeans Skype
Congrea Thinkific Capterra vFairs
We just had a strike and we are EasyMeeting Uberconference
getting behind in class work. D2L TutorRoom
G Suite Vidyo
ElectaLive VEDAMO
Fuze Webex
Google Classrooms WizIQ HighFive Whereby
LearnCube JoinMe Zoho
LiveStorm Zoom
See their tutorials. MeetFox
How can I create or improve
my virtual classroom?

56
Y

Does your institution Make an appointment

Do you have
have someone in charge Y to get your class up
a Web Conferencing System?
of online learning? and running.
N N

Does your school have

Y
a Learning Management System?
N Consider starting with a low- or no-cost course Consider starting with a free option:
room specifically made for teachers: Apache Open Meetings
EasyClass Schoology Google Hangouts (up to 10 participants)
EDMODO Stoodle/Crunchbase GoToMeeting
EducationForFree Teachable JoinMe
ezTalksWebinar TutorRoom Mikogo (up to 14 participants)
Skype (up to 25 participants)
Moodle Udemy
TeamViewer
Morzino WebRoom Uberconference (up to 10 participants)
NearPod YahooGroups Webex (for up to 3 participants)
RCampus Zoom (up to 100 participants, 40 minutes)

Source: Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2020

 Figure 3.6. ​Phase 2: Applying Backward Design

2. BACKWARD DESIGN

MACRO (year level)

Y and "Backward Design"
Is this in syllabus form
and does it include objectives
for every class?
Start with the end, decide
how you will measure Decide on Objectives:
success, and what types Knowledge (e.g., all content information related to 11th grade
of activities you will US History);
include. Skills (e.g., think critically; write persuasively; read deep and widely);
Take your current plan Attitudes (e.g., appreciate team work; perseverance; growth
mindset).
your thinking. Evaluation: e.g., High score on AP US History Exam.
N Activities:

MESO (unit level)

MACRO:
Decide on Objectives:
Decide on an
Essential Question Knowledge (e.g., all content information related to diversity in the
Y 20th century);
for the Year.

57
Have you mapped out Skills (e.g., think critically, analyze, compare and contrast concepts
of diversity over the past 150 years);
your work through the end
Attitudes (e.g., appreciate teamwork, perseverance, and growth
of the school year? mindsets).
N Evaluation: e.g., short essay; participation in research and teamwork
MESO:
in debate; self-reflection paper.
Decide on the
Essential Question Activities:
for the Unit.
Is this in your head MICRO (daily level)
(because you want to be
Y
flexible and adjust each class Decide on Objectives:
based on student needs)? Knowledge (e.g., all content information related to the concept:
N MICRO: Failure to compromise);
Decide on the Skills (e.g., compare and contrast leaders of this time period with
Essential Question the current political situation);
for the Day. Attitudes (e.g., appreciate team work, perseverance, growth
mindsets).
Evaluation: e.g., gather research material to prepare for debate.
Activities:

Source: Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2020

 Figure 3.7. ​Phases 3, 4, 5: Choosing Tools, Pedagogies, and Instructional Design

3. TOOLS 4. PEDAGOGIES 5. INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGH

I know about all the tools available to me, including: I know about all the methodologies, strategies and pedagogies online, including how to:
• Online self-graded, low-stake Quizzes; • use breakout rooms for small-group discussions;
• Interactive (a)synchronous Discussion Boards; • differentiate homework to attend to individual needs better;
• Flipping;
• take advantage of the "disinhibition effect" and anonymity of student interaction to get them to share more;
• Bundles (mini-libraries) of free and open resources;
• use the Goldilocks’ Effect and devise algorithms for teaching so the material is "just right" for the learner;
• Division of Social and Academic Spaces;
Y • manage online course rooms for maximum participation;
• 3-2-1 Reflections;
• Course Analytics to measure individual and group progress; • take advantage of social contagion;
• E-portfolios; • communicate personally so each student feels a relationship to the teacher and the community and to
• Project assignments; create a strong learning community;
• Office Hours; • leverage online presence;
• Announcements;
• leverage online touch;
• and Breakout Rooms.
N • manage time using flipped classrooms;
• personalize feedback;
N
• use digital apps to save time on "simple" tasks (e.g., grammar checks) to leave more time for "human" tasks

58
Y like motivation, encouragement and one-to-one feedback.

Do you enter every single Y

class extremely prepared
with a clear idea of what
you hope to achieve?
I consider myself
N I consider myself I consider myself
Advanced. I want to know
a Beginner. an Intermediate.
Review Pedagogies. more the best instructional
I want to start from scratch. Show me some new tools.
design possible.
Y Y Y

Review tools.
Choose 1-2 Tools and Choose 3-4 Tools and Choose 5-9 Tools and
1-2 Pedagogies. 3-4 Pedagogies. 5-11+ Pedagogies.

Review pedagogy and

didactical tools, including
activities, strategies, and DONE
methodologies.

Source: Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2020

 Figure 3.8. ​Phases 6, 7, 8: Create a Template, Open Class, Evaluate

6. TEMPLATE FOR CLASS 7. OPEN CLASS 8. EVALUATE

Will you use Upload

Will you use
Projects or other Y CELEBRATE!
Bundles? assignments.
assignments?
Y

Do you have Will you use Review tutorial for

Y Upload. Y Y
the materials? Analytics? your platform.
N Are you meeting
all your teaching
and learning objectives?
Identify
Will you use Activate
appropriate Y
3-2-1 Reflections? and organize.
material.

59
Will you use Populate
Y Is your design complete?
Quizzes? the quizzes.
N

Will you use

Will you Flip Send a test
Email and Y
your course? email.
Announcements? Do you want to open
Y
and continue uploading
N
content as you advance
through the material?
Do you have Will you use Create
Y Upload. Y Y
videos? Discussion Boards? the prompts.
N

Make Will you use Activate and COMPLETE.

Y TWEAK!
the videos. E-portfolios? organize. Upload content.

Source: Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2020

60 Bringing the Neuroscience of Learning to Online Teaching
on the cheaply made dessert. Do not let yourself be
overwhelmed by the choices.
Once your objectives are clear, choose your tools.
Figure 3.7 shows some of the options pos­si­ble and the
tools often used in our courses.
To facilitate the se­lection of the right tools, ­we’ll
share another decision tree pro­ cess in the coming
chapters about the benefits and uses of synchronous
and asynchronous tools. For now, ­we’ll focus solely on
the decision-­making pro­cess.
The decision tree in Figure 3.8 explains the basic
steps in choosing good tools. In parallel with choosing
tools, ­great teachers think about the pedagogy—­the
activities, strategies, methodologies.
­Great teachers understand that the preplanning
of ­going online is more time-­consuming than simply
walking into a classroom with a general lesson plan
for the day, but the payoff in student learning is
worth it.
Once an initial plan is in place, online design per-
mits easy adjustments when students have unex-
pected needs and also facilitates better differentiation.
­Great teachers know that it also saves them time from
the second offering of the course onward as planning
­will then only involve a small amount of tweaking
and updating. The big question of time distribution
and other time-­savers in online settings is the focus of
Chapter 4.
 CHAPTER 4
Rethinking Time and Space
­ here w
T ­ ere at least four impor­tant changes in educa-
tional practice that hinged on time that seem to be h ­ ere
to stay, pandemic or no pandemic. Changed forever are
the school calendar, the differences between synchro-
nous and asynchronous learning, time for communica-
tion, and the time we give to activities like evaluation.
I’d like to think t­ hese changes are all for the better. This
chapter explores how t­ hese changes ­will modify teach-
ers’ professional profiles and practices in the ­future.
TIME FOR SCHOOL: THE ACADEMIC CALENDAR
In ­earlier educational times, we often thought of cal-
endars in terms of fall, winter, spring, and (glorious)
summer. Summer was long and necessary b ­ ecause we
needed all hands on deck to help with the harvest,
including all the ­children (Rury, 2012). This is no lon-
ger the case t­oday, as less than 2% of Americans live
on farms and less than 1% of c­ hildren actually work
during the harvest (American Farm Bureau Federation,
2020). With more and more schools shortening their
summer holidays in ­favor of a year-­round schooling
structure, this means that the calendar has been re-
shaped (Figure 4.1).
Year-­round schooling addresses two impor­ tant
challenges in the teaching–­ learning dynamic. First,
both teachers and students are less burnt out as they
have more frequent, albeit shorter breaks, even though
­there is exactly the same number of days of schooling
in both models. Second, ­there is less of a gap between
­those with money to send kids to camp and ­those who
­don’t. Moving online has brought renewed attention
to the “summer gap” that divides the “haves” and the
“have-­nots” in education (Alexander et al., 2016) and
added on the “digital divide” (Seymour et al., 2020)
that makes it clear that poorer p ­ eople are dispropor-
tionately left ­behind ­unless certain policies are changed.
One way to reduce the learning loss that occurs during
summer is to incorporate a year-­round calendar.
The school calendar is a policy-­ level decision
and not made by teachers, but teachers should be
61
aware that their jobs may soon change ­because of it.
Year-­round schooling is on the rise for many reasons,
not the least of which is the pandemic, which forced
additional professional development on teachers over
the summer months. This type of preparation may be-
come a new norm given the time needed to or­ga­nize
videos and bundles for online classes, and if we are
honest with the profession, we should recognize that
it is likely to now become a year-­round job, something
many teachers already knew.
Public opinion among learners who have taken at
least one online and one face-­to-­face university class
shows that blended learning slightly beats out 100%
online learning, and both are far ahead of 100% face-­
to-­face learning (Allen & Seaman, 2016), prob­ ably
due to the flexibility, personalization, and sheer num-
ber of resources available online. T ­ here is similar evi-
dence for K–12 when teachers are trained and given
enough time to prepare (Pulham & Graham, 2018;
Delgado et al., 2015; Powell et al., 2015; Smith &
Brame, 2017). Being a superior modality for learning
has its costs, however. As something new for most
teachers, even if the synchronous meeting time with
students remains the same, it is clear that both the
preparation and evaluation stages of teaching take
more time online. Whereas I once estimated that ­great
teachers should spend one hour in front of a class pre-
ceded by one hour of preparation and one hour of
grading (a 1:1:1 ratio), it is very clear that ­going online
for the first time is more like a 1:3:3 ratio.
We ran numbers about how real teachers spent
their time preparing for their first online class during
the summer of 2020 to make recommendations to
schools about teacher compensation. In a hy­po­thet­i­
cal example summarizing the findings, we found that
if a teacher has five dif­fer­ent classes each school year
and flips all of ­these classes, they would be working
around 60 hours a week. If that same teacher used
the summer to prepare, this would result in a work-
week of 46.6 hours per week, which is still too much.
This modeling suggests that teachers should only
teach four dif­fer­ent classes and be paid for a 12-­month work
62 Traditional
Bringing the Neurosciencevs.
Calendar Year-Round
of Learning Calendar
to Online Teaching

Figure 4.1. ​Year-Round Calendar vs. Traditional Calendar

Summer Break Period 4

Spring classes
54 days Summer Break
50 days
20 days

Period 4 Spring Break

Mar–June
15 days
46 days Period 1
Summer classes
44 days
Period 1
Sept–Nov
62 days
Spring Break
10 days
Period 3 Fall Break
Winter classes 15 days
Thanksgiving 44 days
2 days

Period 3 Period 2
Jan–Mar Nov–Dec
Winter Break Period 2
57 days Winter Break 15 days
27 days Fall classes
10 days 42 days

180 in School 180

© Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2019 77 on Vacation 77

year in order to reach an approximate standard work-
week, something that administrators might balk at.
The real­ ity is that teachers, students, and families
know that the quality of education and the quality of
the feedback they can give are drastically changed by
the number of hours teachers prepare (Ingvarson &
Rowley, 2017). It is also clear that teachers are the
lowest-­paid profession globally, and that ­there was a
teacher shortage even before the pandemic (Garcia &
Weiss, 2019), during which thousands deserted the
profession ­because of the additional demands made
by social–­emotional needs, technology, and equity is-
sues among students (Darling-­ Hammond & Hyler,
2020). ­Unless compensation is improved, it ­will be
hard to keep enough teachers on board to maintain
our schools. The role and importance of ­great educa-
tors in society gained traction in 2020, and policy­
makers are ­doing their best to keep the spotlight on
the need for better compensation (Baker & Di Carlo,
2020). This news comes as a relief to many teachers,
who already knew that they spent their summers
planning and gathering resources. Reward for teach-
ers’ long hours may be on the horizon, and year-­round
education may be coming to balance inequities for kids
and families.
SYNCHRONOUS AND
ASYNCHRONOUS LEARNING
In addition to thinking about changes in time based on
the academic calendar and teacher planner, t­here is
also new vocabulary around time in online learning.
Before the pandemic, it was thought of in terms of
space; since the pandemic, we think of time. Before
we used to think of class time and homework; now we
talk about synchronous and asynchronous learning ac-
tivities. Let’s begin by defining t­ hese terms and then dis-
cuss the best way to choose between activities in ­these
two time categories for better learning outcomes.
The word synchronous has the root Cronus, who is
the Greek god of time. To be synchronous is to be in or
on time, and to be asynchronous is to be out of time or
not in time. This means that an asynchronous activity
is one in which the teacher and learner do not have to
share the same time.
 Rethinking Time and Space 63

Time Is More Important Than Space structure asynchronous learning in conjunction with
the face-­to-­face encounters.
The RAND Corporation did a study about what Good learning takes place in a balance of carefully
happened when ­people moved online very quickly
­
designed synchronous and asynchronous moments
(Schwartz et al., 2020). Interestingly enough, they (Martin et al., 2020). At the start of the pandemic,
found that many teachers and students mistakenly teachers mistakenly believed that “asynchronous” was
believed that “real” learning only happened in the equated with “homework” and “synchronous” was
classroom, meaning they mentally connected learn- equated with “classwork.” Only ­after a few months of
ing to a physical space, rather than to the way time is experience did many begin to realize that asynchro-
or­ga­nized. This led many teachers to send tons of nous and synchronous have nothing to do with school
readings and worksheets to replicate classwork, and home (places), but rather with time. Asynchronous
which they then tried to review in the synchronous learning ­isn’t bad or good, just as synchronous learning
teleconferencing encounter. This impossible task is neither bad nor good; they are one of many choices
made ­going online seem like a failure to both the to make when we design learning encounters, and the
teachers, who felt they had no control over the in- right balance is vital to successful online learning.
struction, and to the students, who felt their teachers A second way to think of learning design is
merely dumped a lot of busywork on them. The main through explicit (direct) instruction versus implicit
error, it was found, was that teachers and students (indirect) instruction (Figure 4.2). Explicit learning is
relied too heavi­ly on synchronous times and did not when we call out and let students know that “­today

Figure 4.2. ​Decision Tree: Asynchronous vs. Synchronous, Explicit vs. Implicit, Digital vs. Analog

Time Modality Pedagogy Activity or Resource

Q. When should you use
Digital Resources?

A. When they best meet

Digital Technology
your Objective. Online Implicit instruction
Other

Digital Technology
© Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2020

Explicit instruction
Other

Digital Technology
Asynchronously Offline Implicit instruction
Other

Digital Technology
Explicit instruction
Other
Is the Objective best met
Do you have a clear Objective? Y Asynchronously or
Synchronously?
Digital Technology
N Implicit instruction
Other

Digital Technology
Synchronously Online Explicit instruction
Other

Digital Technology
Revisit Understanding by Design: Implicit instruction
Other
What are the knowledge, skills,
and attitudes you want each
student to have by the end of this Digital Technology
[lesson] [class] [unit] [semester]? Offline Explicit instruction
Other

Source: Author
64 Bringing the Neuroscience of Learning to Online Teaching
we are ­going to study Egyptians” or “this class is ­going
to be devoted to musical scales.” On the other hand,
implicit instruction is when we reach our objective
through less direct means, such as asking a probing
question like, “History is full of impor­tant civilizations;
which civilization is best known for its im­mense stat-
ues and awesome pyramids?” or “Our world can be
described using musical notes. What is special about
natu­ral notes compared with flat notes?” Just as syn-
chronous and asynchronous learning activities play
dif­fer­ent roles, so do explicit and implicit activities.
Sometimes explicit instruction is necessary, such as
when you want to ensure a fact or definition is clear;
other times implicit instruction is better, such as when
you want students to research or reflect on their own.
Planning online learning experiences involves
making choices. As in most good educational planning,
the best decisions begin by clarifying the objective.
Once we have a clear objective, we can ask if that ob-
jective can best be reached through asynchronous or
synchronous means. Once that is de­cided, we need to
ask if the chosen activity should be executed with ex-
plicit or implicit instruction. ­After the choices of asyn-
chronous vs. synchronous and explicit vs. implicit have
been made, then teachers need to decide if the best
activity or resource to support the learning is a digital
tool or another type of resource. This step-by step pro­
cess w­ ill improve the likelihood of teachers identifying
the right resources to achieve their objectives.
Online Is Good Not Only for Content,
But Also for Connectedness
Another t­hing that came out of the RAND study was
that learning online is fantastic in terms of minimizing
disruptions at school when you have emergencies like
COVID-19, not only b ­ ecause it keeps students up to
date with content, but primarily b ­ecause it helps
­people feel connected and know they are not alone.
Many learners ­were happy to know that class would
be online at a regular time each day (or week) b ­ ecause
it helped them feel a part of something larger than
themselves. Many argue that schools should reopen
­because of ­mental health issues; few acknowledge that
meeting online regularly in a video conferencing con-
text can reap as many, or even more benefits, than
face-­to-­face learning, especially when face-­to-­face
­really means mask-­to-­mask at a six-­foot distance.
On the other hand, asynchronous learning can
help with content (see Figure 4.3). Dif­fer­ent p ­ eople
need dif­fer­ent ­things at dif­fer­ent times to fill in indi-
vidual gaps in knowledge and to advance at an accept-
able pace. Moving online means t­here is a g­reat
potential to begin the ultimate effort in differentiation:
­Don’t treat p­ eople the same but rather give every­body
what they need. For example, if Johnny and Susy are
in the same 2nd-­grade classroom and use the same
reader, but the teacher notices that Johnny needs
more rehearsal to read fluently, while Susy needs
more exposure to vocabulary words in context, she
can assign asynchronous activities (homework) that
fill in each student’s dif­fer­ent needs.
Once teachers work through the decision tree and
choose ­whether an activity ­will be asynchronous or
synchronous, and then decide if it ­ will be taught
explic­ itly or implicitly, teachers are still faced with
thousands of choices. Teachers know that all resources,
including digital ones, should help you reach dif­fer­ent
objectives, and t­hose objectives may have to be scaf-
folded up or down, depending on the student. They
also know that dif­fer­ent tools lend themselves to asyn-
chronous learning—­things students can do in­de­pen­
dently and on their own time—­ while ­
others lend
themselves to synchronous learning—­things the stu-
dents do together as a group in real time.
Figure 4.3 explains the key aspects of synchronous
learning, which is in real time and can be leveraged to
enhance social interactions, and asynchronous learning,
which is self-­paced and ­great for delivering content with
the level of repetition necessary for each individual.
Asynchronous learning activities (Figure 4.3) in-
clude ­things like prerecorded videos (flipping), nar-
rated slide decks, screencasts, puzzles, student-­paired
lessons, paced lessons, discussion boards, and collab-
orative documents like ­those found in Google Drive
where ­people add ­things to it but not in real time.
­These kinds of activities are excellent ways to allow
the learner to use as much or as ­little time on task as
they feel they need. For example, one student might
carefully watch the pre-­class video, take copious notes,
and rewind and rewatch parts of the recording multi-
ple times, while another learner who is more familiar
with the material might leave the video on in the
background as she makes herself a snack.
Asynchronous activities that yield good results are
varied and primarily depend on objective and age.
Younger kids benefit from asynchronous activities
that are similar to educational TV, but that now are
online and come with question-and-answer
prompts that kids can work on with their parents or
alone. Sesame Street has several fantastic
asynchronous apps, which teach pre-literacy and
early math, while Creative Galaxy is great for
 Rethinking Time and Space 65

Figure 4.3. Synchronous Real Time vs. Asynchronous Self-Paced: Which Is Better When?

REAL-TIME, FACE-TO FACE SELF-PACED

SYNCHRONOUS ASYNCHRONOUS

Small group discussions

SOCIAL INTERACTIONS

Motivational speeches
Relationship building Social Media platforms (e.g., Yelowdig)
Phone calls Discussion Board
Collaborative work Peer Feedback
Project-Based Learning Teacher Feedback
Chat Email
Polls Virtual Annoucements
Instant Messaging Reality
Debates

Multi-Player Games DIFFERENTIATION

Pre-class (flipped) videos

Khan Academy
Single-Player (Self-graded) quizzes
Games
CONTENT INTERACTIONS

Bundles (mini-libraries)
Video conferencing MOOCs
Live class presentations Wikis
Team Problem Solving Simulations Journaling
3-2-1 Reflection paper Shared work in Google Drive
Shared whiteboard Narrated slide deck
Live Webinar Virtual Apps
Streaming Webinar Fieldtrips Semester project
Office Hours Game-Based Learning
Podcasts
Blog
Radio
TV

activity based on their personal needs. In terms of

thinking outside of the box to find art-based
solutions. Tools such as FunBrain are great for
practicing math skills with the early childhood
crowd, while Daniel Tiger from Mister Rogers’
Neighborhood is a wonderful way to inspire
kindness and empathy in small children.
Asynchronous activities give learners the space to
choose how much or how little time they give to the
communication, asynchronous tools include things
like email or sending announcements through the
course LMS. These kinds of communication tools are
often more detailed than instant synchronous mes-
sages from users’ phones.
Synchronous learning activities include live classes
in Zoom that provide time for collaborative work and
clarifications as well as the use of the chat function
to get answers in real time. Synchronous activities
also include telephoning families to check in on
66 Bringing the Neuroscience of Learning to Online Teaching
preschoolers, notifying students “­we’re ­going to open
this Google Drive now and every­body’s ­going to work
on it together for the next 20 minutes,” and sending
messages on WhatsApp and Instagram. Multiplayer
online games and virtual real­ity (VR) are synchronous
activities in which students, normally m ­ iddle school
and higher, compete, play, and work t­oward shared
goals. Fi­nally, students of all ages benefit from syn-
chronous office hours in which they can speak one-­
on-­one with the teacher ­either for personal needs or
content clarification.
Synchronous time is precious and should be
planned carefully to maximize time for student
clarifications, help the community grow together,
problem solve collaboratively, and support social–
emotional learning goals.
Benefits of Asynchronous Learning
­ here are no “good” or “bad” activities: Every­thing de-
T students they serve, and the tools they choose to in-
pends on the objective. If the teachers’ choice of activi-
ties is based on the most effective way to reach the
objective, then it is a “good” activity. To help make this
choice, using a ­simple T-­chart of benefits and draw-
backs can be helpful (see ­Table 4.1).
Coherency in Final Objectives. A benefit of asyn-
chronous learning is coherency. As the RAND study
showed, asynchronous learning plays a big role in sus-
taining learning objectives when schooling cannot be
face-­to-­face. This bridges the past to the pre­sent and
­future, and weaves together the clearer development
of curricular objectives.
Learning at Your Own Pace. Another benefit of
asynchronous learning is that it is done at the learner’s
own pace. As ­there is no time constraint, learners can
rehearse as many times as they like flexibly and do this
at any time.
Time to Reflect. Learners have time to mind wan-
der and play with ideas asynchronously. Unlike a live
class, where you often have to answer on the spot and
with very l­ittle time to think, asynchronous activities
provide time for reflection. The time dedicated to the
task is chosen by the learner.
Time to Research. T ­ here are additional opportu-
nities to research questions when you have asynchro-
nous time. If you are watching the pre-­class flipped
video, for example, you can pause and look up a term,
something that is very hard to do in a live class.
Lower Cost. Some types of online learning, such
as self-­
guided MOOCS, which are 100% asynchro-
nous, can be run for a fraction of the cost of a regular
course and offered to learners for ­free. And even when
taught as a fully online program, once investment
costs are paid off, asynchronous learning tends to be
much lower cost than face-­to-­face.
Differentiated Homework. It is easier to differen-
tiate homework using asynchronous tools in an online
learning environment. ­ Because the number of re-
sources in an online environment is greater than in a
face-­to-­face classroom as t­here is no physical limita-
tion, teachers can assign students dif­fer­ent types of
homework if they take the time to include t­hese re-
sources on their platform.
Autonomy Through Bundle Choice. Teachers can
select resources based on the objectives, the range of
clude. Bundles permit learners to choose their own
entry point to the information, giving them autonomy
and choice. Bundles are also the resources that allow
teachers to differentiate homework.
Limitations of Asynchronous Learning
Social Interaction. In asynchronous learning
t­here is ­little or no social interaction. Self-­motivated
students can create study groups on their own, but
­there is generally ­little facilitation of ­these activities by
instructors. Similar to traditional homework assign-
ments, most students do asynchronous work on their
own.
Intrinsic Motivation a Must. In asynchronous
learning ­there is very ­little extrinsic motivation to get
­things done, meaning learners must rely on their own
intrinsic motivators. To be successful in online learn-
ing environments that are solely asynchronous, im-
plicit motivation is a must.
Immediate Feedback Is Slower. Work in asyn-
chronous environments does not always have imme-
diate feedback. Asynchronous learning poses the
challenge that it is less likely you can ask questions
about assignments if you have doubts. ­Limited imme-
diacy means learners have to be much more in­de­pen­
dent and/or teachers have to be much clearer in their
instructions.
 Rethinking Time and Space 67
Benefits of Synchronous
Immediate Response to Inquiries, Communica­
tion in Real Time. On the other hand, synchronous
environments create the opportunity for immediacy.
­Whether in a live classroom or in a video conferencing
structure, you can raise your hand and get help almost
instantaneously. Immediacy is one of the main bene-
fits of synchronous learning.
Differentiation Through Collaboration. Syn­
chronous learning activities lend themselves to small,
collaborative group work that can be personalized.
Teachers can take advantage of live encounters to dif-
ferentiate learner needs by dividing and personalizing
assignments in class. If collaborative work is done fre-
quently, all learners benefit.
Real-­Time Exchanges with Peers. One of the
most impor­tant aspects of synchronous work is the
ability to collaborate with o
­ thers in real time. Working
together on problem-­based activities, or to construct
shared proj­ects in real time, is a g­ reat benefit to face-­
to-­
face instruction, ­ whether in a brick-­ and-­ mortar
classroom or virtually.
Autonomy Through Student-­Led Proj­ects. One
of the best motivators for students is to share what they
know with o ­ thers. By giving students choice about
proj­ects and then giving them space to share their work
in front of ­others, teachers can enhance learning out-
comes ­because teaching is one of the best ways to learn.
Synchronous learning time can be exploited to its best
potential by allowing students to lead and share.
Instant Feedback. Synchronous learning offers
immediate feedback on work before students go too
far astray. In traditional classrooms, this looks like the
teacher walking through the aisles and expertly skim-
ming over the way a child solved a math prob­lem,
spotting an error, and prompting the child to review
for accuracy. In an online class, this looks much the
same, but the observable work takes many more for-
mats, ranging from discussion boards to live class stu-
dent interaction to feedback on student reflections.
Dialogue About Student Understanding. Syn­
chronous encounters are also the moments in
which the instructor can put the fin­ger on the pulse of
the group as well as individual learners. In a tradi-
tional classroom this can be done by explic­itly asking,
how many of you think “A” is right and how many
think “B” is right? and counting the hands raised. In
an online classroom, the teacher can use Kahoot or
another anonymous polling device to ask the same
question or pose an even more complex set of possi-
bilities (“A,” “B,” “C,” or “D”) and then see which of
the students choose which of the answers for l­ater in-
tervention. ­Doing this in a synchronous setting lets
teachers see both the individual and the group re-
sponse and use this to better address individual or
group needs.
Differentiation Through Personalization. Syn­
chronous meetings are the moments when relation-
ships between teacher and student can be solidified
and personalized. Calling on a student by name, asking
about their evolving ideas on concepts, praising good
work in public are all t­hings that can be done in both
traditional classrooms and online to personalize the
encounter. Differentiation can also be achieved by as-
signing personalized homework, as mentioned ­earlier.
Better Group Work. Synchronous learning mo-
ments not only offer the teacher and students time
to know each other better, but they are also the mo-
ments when student-­to-­student collaboration is best
achieved. In the traditional classroom, this looks like
moving chairs around and shuffling students into
small groups to work on a prob­lem together. In an on-
line environment, the teacher can group the right skill
sets and personalities together and then pop them into
breakout rooms for discussion in seconds.
Autonomy Through Student-­Led Proj­ects. Syn­
chronous learning time is also the moment to let stu-
dents shine. In both face-­to-­face classrooms and online
platforms, teachers can use synchronous time to let
students lead the discussion or the activity. Jigsaw dis-
cussion, in which students are divided into small
groups to share dif­fer­ent perspectives (A, B, C, D, E, F)
and then re-­divided (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) to bring all of the
ideas together before moving back to the larger group,
can be achieved in both traditional and online class-
rooms. Jigsaw creates an interde­pen­dency for success
in which all of the team members contribute to the
group’s success.
Greater Engagement Due to Social Contagion.
Synchronous learning’s main benefit is social conta-
gion. The dynamics of the group and the “classroom
environment” are built up or torn down by the ways
individuals act together. In a traditional classroom, so-
cial contagion is the chemistry in the air. In an online
environment, this is the wave of smiles that are seen
on the f­aces in the video conferencing session a­ fter
68 Bringing the Neuroscience of Learning to Online Teaching
someone shares an amusing anecdote. While not as
palpable as face-to-face encounters, social contagion
in online environments can be quicker to take hold as
everyone can see each other’s faces, whereas in physi-
cal classrooms many people are looking at each other’s
backs, or only see the teacher’s face.
Limitations of Synchronous Learning
Rapid Adjustments. Whether in a traditional class-
room or online, real-time synchronous learning re-
quires real-time responses. This means that there is
little or no time for an individual to reflect before need-
ing to act. This is true for both teachers and students
and can cause errors in interpretation or understanding
due to the short time period for response. Expert teach-
ers adjust their lessons based on the reactions of stu-
dents, and students must be able to answer questions in
the heat of the moment as the spotlight is on them.
Requires Teacher and Learners to Meet at the
Same Time. Synchronous learning, by its very defini-
tion, means that all of the actors are present in
real time, which means that schedules need to be
Figure 4.4 Scalable Student–Teacher Quality
Achievement Over Time:
Conventional Face-to-Face Classrooms,
Master Learning
and 1:1 Tutorials
1:30*
Mastery Learning
1:30*
Conventional Classroom
Summative Achievement Scores
* Teacher-Student Ratio
Source: Author, based on Bloom, 1984, p. 5
coordinated. In regular school settings, this is based on
a school schedule in which courses are blocked into a
timetable. In online learning, the school schedule
might mirror the traditional timetable, or it might be
adjusted to meet external actor needs, such as parents
who are not always around to supervise online work
and who request that classes be in the evening when
they can be present.
The Course Is Only as Good as the Instructor.
Whether in a traditional classroom or online, the qual-
ity of the course always boils down to the quality of
the instructor; there is no quality education without
quality educators (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017).
The single greatest influencing factor in learner suc-
cess is the teacher. Without well-trained teachers with
the right skill sets, there is no quality learning. Going
online requires a different set of skills from teaching in
a traditional setting. Successful teachers take the time
to learn and apply both pedagogical skills—the ability
to manage an online group; design and choose online
activities; differentiate in online settings—and techno-
logical skills—the ability to upload work in an online
platform or run a video conference session.
1:1*
Tutorial
 Rethinking Time and Space 69
Tied to the “Average” Student Response Rate
of the Group. The pace of learning in a classroom,
both traditional and online, is the key to group ad-
vancement as a unit. But a chain is only as strong as its
weakest link. If ­every student ­were able to learn at
their own pace, more students would succeed, but we
would also need a one-­on-­one relationship of student
to teacher, which is impossible in public schooling.
This leads to Benjamin Bloom’s “2 Sigma Prob­lem”
(1984) or the search for classroom learning that was as
good as one-­on-­one tutoring. Bloom found the next
best ­thing to one-­on-­one tutoring is mastery learning,
as we indicated in Chapter 2.
Synchronous class pace is often dictated by outlier
students ­unless teachers keep the focus on mastery. To
apply mastery learning concepts, teachers need to estab-
lish what the average amount of time is to complete
learning tasks, and then extend that for slower learners
and contract it for faster learners, all the while advancing
the group. B ­ ecause synchronous learning hinges on the
pace of the average response rate of the group members,
expert teachers use asynchronous learning activities to
individualize each student’s starting point so that when
the class is together the group can advance seamlessly.
Pace of Content Coverage Set by the Class
Structure. The best use of synchronous time is to take
advantage of the social nature of learning rather than
to work on individual needs, which can be improved
in asynchronous time. For example, rather than
spend synchronous time practicing holding a pencil
correctly—­something that can be better rehearsed
individually—­the teacher can use the synchronous
time to ask the group what it notices about script and
how it is formed. Synchronous work should be syn-
onymous with group work.
Requires Technical Infrastructure. Both tradi-
tional and online classrooms require infrastructure to
take advantage of synchronous learning moments. In a
traditional face-­to-­face classroom this prizes ergonom-
ics, or the physical layout of space and resources in
brick-­and-­mortar classrooms. In an online classroom,
this means having the right hard-­and software as well
as bandwidth. The pandemic showed teachers that
many of their students are at a disadvantage ­because
they d­ on’t have adequate Internet or learning tools,
limiting the success of online schooling drastically.
Summary of Benefits and Limitations
Not all learning needs to occur synchronously, as
teachers and students once used to believe. To design
a ­great classroom experience, ­whether it be online or
in person, teachers need to choose a careful balance of
asynchronous and synchronous activities. The pace of
the content coverage depends on w ­ hether or not the
teacher designs the class with this balance. ­Table 4.1
summarizes the benefits and limitations of asynchro-
nous and synchronous learning.
As a general recommendation, teachers should le-
verage synchronous face-­to-­face time for discussions,
collaborative work, and sharing to leverage the wis-
dom of the group (Acosta-­Tello, 2015), and asynchro-
nously off-­ load content information through ­ things
like flipped videos and to differentiated homework.
Expert teachers take advantage of the valuable syn-
chronous moments and avoid lecturing or addressing
any one student’s individual needs in ­ favor of the
group needs. Instead, they collectively work on group
prob­lem solving, community building, deeper discus-
sion, concept application, and/or collaborative work
that might inspire the solution.
TIME FOR COMMUNICATION
Communication in schools takes place on many levels
and with many stakeholders. The number of actors,
types of messages, and frequency of exchanges vary
widely by institution. Depending on the communica-
tion goal, different tools play different roles.
School Communication Policies
Schoolwide protocols are necessary to establish basic
norms in educational institutions. Good school com-
munication policies smooth the way for good learning.
Schoolwide protocols often not only clarify planned
school events, but spill into health and safety issues as
we saw during the pandemic. Communication policies
in traditional face-­to-­face settings are somewhat dif­
fer­ent from communicational policies made in online
settings. Schools have to be prepared for both, so it
makes sense to choose tools that are equally effective
in both modalities.
Prob­lems in communication can come from both
the sending and the receiving side of the message. For
example, the ways teachers communicate with their
students and parents are sometimes dif­fer­ent from the
way a school would communicate with their students
and parents, which can be confusing to the receiver.
Students and parents also need to know the proper
communications channels to send messages to the
teacher and the school when they have needs or ques-
tions, as well as who and how to notify school officials
70 Bringing the Neuroscience of Learning to Online Teaching
­Table 4.1. Benefits and Limitations of Synchronous and Asynchronous Learning
Benefits
Immediate response to inquiries
Communication in real time
SYNCHRONOUS
Real time collaboration
Instant feedback
Instructor can gauge students’ understanding of concepts more accurately
Differentiation through personalization
Better student collaboration
Autonomy through student-led projects
Greater engagement due to social contagion
Flexibility: Anytime, anywhere learning
ASYNCHRONOUS
Coherency in final objectives
Self-paced
Time to reflect
Time to research
Lower cost
Differentiated homework
Autonomy through bundle choice
Can express thoughts without interruption
in the event of a prob­lem. ­These multiple layers and
multiple actors can lead to a barrage of emails, instant
messages, and snail mail correspondence that over-
whelm the community in quantity and urgency of
messages.
This confusion was evident to all of the actors at
the outbreak of the pandemic. Administrators scram-
bled to communicate with their stakeholders; students
and teachers tried communicating through telephone,
WhatsApp, and email; and parents received dif­fer­ent
types of messages from each of their child’s multiple
teachers as most schools erred on the side of too much
information rather than too l­ittle. Without a coordi-
nated plan, both senders and receivers of information
­were frustrated. Many of the best responses to school
closures ­ were not only due to good decisions, but
thanks to excellent communication.
To streamline messaging, schools and their teach-
ers should have clearly defined lines of communica-
tion, which translates into knowing which situation
calls for which communication tool. One way to reach
a decision about the communication policy is to check
off which tools are best for which situations in the
worksheet below, and communicate the information
Limitations
Think-on-your-feet: Students have no time to think through answers
and Teacher must adapt to live interaction
Requires teacher and learners to be online at the same time
The course is only as good as the instructor can make it
Limited to the “average” response rate of the group in real time
Pace of content coverage set by the class structure
Requires technical infrastructure
No social interaction (lack of connection)
Intrinsic motivation a must
No immediate feedback
No immediate access to answer about content or logistics
Communication with peers is not live
to parents. An imaginary school’s choices are shaded
in grey in Table 4.2.
Teacher–Family–Student Communication
A good communication policy means every­one knows
who sends which kinds of messages using which kinds
of tools and when, and how to reply, if necessary.
Clear policies avoid the invasion of borders between
personal and professional time that many teachers ex-
perienced at the beginning of the pandemic. During
the first months of COVID-19, many teachers felt ex-
hausted despite having more flexible working hours.
Many complained that the day was never-­ ending
­because they had shared their personal contact infor-
mation with students and got messages at all hours of
the day and night. Teachers can avoid feeling con-
stantly on demand by establishing clear communica-
tion protocols with students and parents. In traditional
school settings, both teachers and students knew when
the right moment was for each type of messaging;
when schools ­were thrust into a new emergency situ-
ation, all tools seemed to be fair game. We witnessed
how some school districts reacted better than ­others,
 Table 4.2. Matrix of Communication Tools and Actors
Virtual Classroom

Actor
Website
Newsletter
Emails
Instant
Messaging
Telephone
Video
Conferencing
Announcements
Syllabus
Calendar
Grade-Book
Email
Office Hours
Content
Discussion Board
Logistics
Discussion Board
(Virtual)
Bulletin Board

Communication
Laws and regulations

State
Health updates

School-wide policies

Messages from the Principal

Monthly communication

School
Weekly communication

Emergency notification

Classroom expectations

Rules or shared protocols

Grading policies

71
Grades

Upcoming class events

Assignment reminders

Teacher
Parent-Teacher meetings (notifications)

Parent-Teacher meetings (execution)

Resources

Health notifications about student

Notify school if child is ill

Parent
Notify teacher of family situation that could impact learning or well-being
Tell teacher about things that impact ability to perform in school
(social, emotional, physical, or mental health)
Questions about assignments

Questions about due dates

Student
Questions about topic content

Question or concerns or problems with course logistics or technology

72 Bringing the Neuroscience of Learning to Online Teaching
but some began the pandemic by accepting homework
sent through classroom Facebook pages, personal in-
formation shared on websites, private emails flooded
with questions about assignment due dates, and it was
anyone’s guess as to how to share “official” school in-
formation that sometimes arrived as a tweet from the
principal’s secretary, and other days from the school
board chair, and other times from the counselor. As
schools settled down, better communication emerged.
School leaders laid out clearer policies, and began to
develop a kind of “communication hygiene” with
clearer protocols. Perhaps the most impor­tant of ­these
policies had to do with regularity.
Regularity Is a Part of Good Communication.
Research on families shows that the established regu-
larity with which parents are around and available for
their ­children is more impor­tant than the amount of
time spent with them (Kalil & Ryan, 2020). That is,
knowing that Dad ­will be around the last weekend of
­every month is more impor­tant than Dad showing up
sporadically for many more hours whenever he can.
Similarly, g­ reat teachers know that establishing a reg-
ular pattern of communication with students is more
welcome than erratically sending messages whenever
time permits. The quality and ability to anticipate
when communication ­ will occur can carry more
weight than spending hours and hours with a student
then stopping contact for no reason for several days.
At the start of COVID-19, I remember happy parents
claiming bragging rights that their c­ hildren’s teachers
checked regularly. This seemed to be more impor­tant
to the families than the teacher who “touched base”
whenever they had time. It turns out that regularity
is more impor­tant than frequency. Teachers (and
schools) can go a long way in reducing the angst
caused by uncertainty by announcing a clear commu-
nication policy and committing to regular time inter-
vals for messaging. Establishing a regular pattern or
cycle of communication with students is rewarded in
students’ gratification, but also in teachers being able
to safeguard their own personal time.
When Students Need Help. To ensure good com-
munication, teachers can also let students know ex-
actly where and how they can get help. For example,
“If you have questions about due dates, look at the cal-
endar.” “If you want to talk personally, please come to
the office hour at X time on Y day.” “If you have any
technical prob­lems or ­can’t access materials, email Tech
Support at this address. . . .” Teachers should also com-
municate about how and when they w ­ ill receive feed-
back on homework. For example, “Your discussion
board posts are due on Thursdays at 8:00 p.m., and you
­will get feedback on your post by Monday at 8:00 p.m.
[within a week] [at the end of the month].” While not
intuitive, students ­favor regularity over speed. Fi­
nally, teachers should tell the students when each dif­
fer­ent type of tool w
­ ill be used. For example, “Please
remember to review the Announcements ­every day
[­every week] as any impor­tant notices ­will be posted
­there,” or “Only use emails to notify me of absences,
and use the content discussion boards if you have a
question about any of the material we are covering.”
Sharing a decision tree like the one in Figure 4.5
ensures students know:
• How messages about assignments will be
communicated
• How emergency notifications will be shared
• How to ask questions about grading and rubric
location
• How to ask questions about course content
• How to ask questions about technology and
resources
• How to ask for help
Communication is not only impor­tant for clarity,
but it is also vital for ­mental health and well-­being.
Caring Through Communication
Central to ­great teaching is caring, and caring can be
communicated in many ways. One implicit way to
care is to re­ spect the learner’s time and the energy
needed to figure out how to do t­ hings. Moving online
requires effort. When teachers use good instructional
design to create intuitive course layouts, they know
that taking the time to clarify learning paths shows re­
spect and caring for the learners.
This leads us to the last point on communication:
It is multidirectional. To both give and receive mes-
sages, teachers need to build in the time to listen. This
investment w ­ ill be rewarded by quality ideas and
feedback that improve classroom outcomes. While it
seems counterintuitive to some teachers, learners of-
ten already know what they need to do better, they
just ­don’t know how to get it. Some students have
been told time ­after time they are “disor­ga­nized,” or
“­don’t write well,” or “should study more”; in fact,
they just d­ on’t know how to become or­ga­nized, write
well, or study more, which is where g­ reat teachers
step in. A colleague of mine, an award-­winning high
school En­glish teacher, said that for the first time in
20 years he promised he would meet with each stu-
dent in his class for 20 minutes and ask just one
 Rethinking Time and Space 73

Figure 4.5. ​Communication Decision Tree

Do you have a question about a class topic, definition, Post your question in the Content Discussion Board so that
or concept (or related topics/definitions/concepts)? everyone can benefit from the answer.

Look in the Logistics Discussion Board. If no one has asked

Do you have a question about course logistics that is not about this, please post your question in this board so that
addressed in the Frequently Asked Questions section? everyone can benefit from the answer (if you have a question,
it is likely that others do, too!).

Do you have a non-private question about an assignment which

is not addressed in the Frequently Asked Questions section and
that others might benefit from by getting a response to?

Send us a message within the online classroom. Be sure

Do you have a private question about an assignment? the subject indicates the module and assignment
(e.g., "Module 2, 3-2-1 Reflection").

Email us (from your preferred email account) at

Is this a question about the login process or a login issue? support@thelearningsciences.com with a detailed description
of your problem (and a screenshot of any error, if applicable).

Is this about something technical (i.e., a technical problem)?

Do you need help?

Do you want to share interesting information or resources Great! We’re glad you want to share. Post your recommendation
that others might find useful? in the Recommendations Discussion Board.

Do you want to respond to feedback the instructor

Send us a message within the online classroom.
gave you an assignment?

Do you want to contact the course instructor

for another reason (e.g., you will be missing class
or have something personal you want to share)?

Source: Tokuhama-Espinosa and Borja, 2020

question: What do you need from me to be successful in my methods. The OECD found that an additional hour of
class? He said it changed the dynamics of his ex- assessment has an impor­tant impact on learning, more
changes, teaching, grading, and tone of feedback so than more instruction time (2021).
when he heard what they had to say.
From Standardization to Mastery

TIME FOR ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION
Evaluation is one of the most contentious areas of
schooling. While the teaching–­learning exchange is well
understood, less time is spent improving evaluation
The current education system is time pressured.
Teachers cram more and more into each year’s already
packed curriculum, and then race to “cover” informa-
tion before the next standardized test. U.S. c­hildren
are some of the most tested in the world, taking an
74 Bringing the Neuroscience of Learning to Online Teaching
average of “112 mandated standardized tests between
pre-­
kindergarten classes and 12th grade” (Layton,
2015, p. E-1). Most of ­these tests seek to identify prob­
lem areas and offer help, but ­others rank and divide
student resources. Rushing learning does not pay off.
Benjamin Bloom was one of the leading voices in
educational psy­chol­ogy from the 1950s to the 1980s.
His brilliance is being revived in the 2020s due to the
research on learning and the time it takes to “master”
concepts. In May 1968, Bloom wrote,
A basic task is to determine what is meant by mastery of
the subject and to search for methods and materials
which ­will enable the largest proportion of students to
attain such mastery. That is, the basic task in education is
to find strategies which w ­ ill take individual differences
into consideration but in such a way as to promote the
fullest development of the individual . . . ​ to promote
mastery learning, 5 variables must be dealt with . . . (1)
aptitude for kinds of learning, viewed as the amount of
time required by the learner to attain mastery of the
task; (2) quality of instruction, viewed in terms of its ap-
proaching the optimum for a given learner; (3) ability to
understand instruction, i.e., to understand the nature of
the task and the procedures to follow; (4) perseverance,
the amount of time one is willing to spend in learn-
ing; and (5) time allowed for learning, the key to
mastery. (Bloom, 1968, p. 1, bolded by author)
Expert teachers know that almost all students can
master the learning goals set before them if they are
given enough time. It is ironic that time is precisely the
resource teachers lament the most. With the rise of
online learning, teachers have the chance to reshape
learning moments with time-­saving devices as seen in
Chapter 3.
Why Evaluate?
Most people go into the teaching profession b ­ ecause
they think they can make a difference (Palmer, 2017),
and they usually aspire to lift up e­ very child and maxi-
mize the child’s potential to succeed in life through a
good education (Darling-­ Hammond, 2010). Sadly,
soon ­after they have taught for a few years and expe-
rienced the constant testing in the system, some teach-
ers begin to believe that the goal of learning becomes
­doing well on the exam. It is easy to become jaded in
a system that rewards good test-­takers, but does not
always celebrate t­hose who think outside of the box
(Perry & Karpova, 2017). Luckily, many teachers have
reframed evaluation as part of the learning pro­cess,
not as its end product. This means that teachers should
embrace evaluation as a teaching tool that helps us
mea­sure how close we are to the objectives. Of all of
the opportunities that moving online provides, per-
haps the most radical shift is what this means for eval-
uation. When teachers can get machines to do what
they do best, this ­frees up time to let ­humans do what
they do best. A key ingredient in successful online
classes is in the ability to develop a clear sense of in-
structional design, which we turn to next.
 CHAPTER 5
Designing Learning and Instruction
This chapter brings together the planning, tools, tech-
nology, and neuroscience to describe an instructional
design pro­cess that students love and in which deeper
learning occurs. Research on instructional design has
been led by some eminent scholars (e.g., Mayer, 2019;
Sweller et al., 2019), who have documented online
learning for over 30 years and inspired ­great design.
When the brain can easily predict what to do next, it
can direct energy t­oward more complex thinking,
leading to more efficient learning; this is considered
­great design. Both attention and memory are vital for
learning (Princi­ple 6). If the energy needed to pay at-
tention can be reduced by lowering cognitive load
through good design, then the brain can spend more
time learning rather than figuring out what it needs to
do. G
­ reat instructional design is the key to successful
online teaching and also relies on the careful balance
of patterns and novelty (Tenet 21). Instructional de-
sign, or the choice of activities, their order, and how
they are presented in an online platform, create the
patterns that the brain is expecting, thus saving energy
for learning (Mutlu-­Bayraktar et al., 2019). Patterns
are soothing and low energy, while novelty piques at-
tention systems. G ­ reat courses lower the cognitive
load of the brain by creating a pattern of expected de-
sign ele­ments, but keep students on their toes by offer-
ing novel ele­ments as well, such as the size, color, or
placement of letters or graphics. Virtual classrooms
should be intuitively designed so students know where
to find information, resources, and assignments.
To think critically about the suggested 12-­step pro­
cess in this chapter, readers are reminded of guidelines
from U.S. State and National Standards as well as from
international bodies.
STATE, NATIONAL, AND
INTERNATIONAL GUIDELINES
­ here has been a lot of work on standards in online
T mind.
education K–12 and university level alike. If we accu-
mulatively review the standards from AECT Instructional
Design Standards (Piña & Harris, 2019); Adelstein and
75
Barbour’s “Improving the K-12 Online Course Design
Review Pro­cess: Experts Weigh In on iNACOL National
Standards for Quality Online Courses,” (2017);
Meaningful Online Learning: Integrating Strategies, Activities
and Learning Technologies for Effective Designs (Dabbagh,
Marra, & Howland, 2018); Quality assurance in online
education: A development pro­ cess to design high-­ quality
courses (Paniagua, 2019), and Borup’s K–12 Blended and
Online Competencies, Standards, Retention, and Attitudes
(2018), we arrive at the following accumulative sum-
mary competencies.
Start with the End in Mind: Great teachers use
backward design to determine objectives,
evaluation criteria, and activities.
Communicate: Great teachers make sure
objectives are clear, transparent, and obvious
to the learner.
Articulate Assumptions: Great teachers ensure
that learners know what prerequisite
knowledge is presumed of them.
Design, Don’t Just Instruct: Great teachers create
design learning using engaging and attractive
tools.
Aesthetics and Intuition: Great teachers create an
aesthetically pleasing structure to their course.
Balance: Great teachers ensure a balance of
asynchronous to synchronous activities.
Multimodality: Great teachers use multimodal
learning tools.
The Wisdom of the Group: Great teachers use the
intelligence of the learning community.
Differentiate Evaluation: Great teachers
remember that evaluation is a teaching tool.
Feedforward, Not Just Back: Great teachers focus
on future improvements using feedforward,
rather than lamenting the past in feedback.
Choose the Right Tools: Great teachers select tools
with care and always with the objective in
Flip for Deeper Learning: Great teachers use
flipped classrooms. There is evidence that
flipping is superior to traditional classrooms in
76 Bringing the Neuroscience of Learning to Online Teaching

terms of learning outcomes (e.g., Cheng et al.,
2019). Off-loading “memoristic” content to
pre-class videos permits more collaborative,
synchronous time.
To achieve an instructional design with all of ­these
competencies, I would like to share a worked model
used in kindergarten through university classrooms
based on my Canvas course at Harvard Extension and
used by my team at Connections. The template of this
instructional design is available for ­free to teachers at
www​ .­
thelearningsciences​.­
com. This design is by no
means the only way to structure a course, but it re-
sponds to all of the international criteria for good de-
sign and received good reviews from learners. Readers
can use this instructional design as a starting point and
select the ele­ments they would like to include in their
own classes.
A 12-STEP PROCESS
As suggested in Chapter 1, the new “black box” of learn-
ing takes a teacher’s knowledge about her subject and
her understanding about teaching, and complements
this with technology and design that saves time, while
incorporating evidence-­ informed choices using Mind,
Brain, and Education science. The icing on the cake are
the thousands of new tools available to assist instruction
and evaluation, and the strong learning communities
that can be built off of online social contagion.
Step 1: Course Objectives
First, and foremost, teachers think of objectives at a
macro level: What knowledge, skills, and attitudes w ­ ill
learners have at a successful completion of the course?
Knowledge is the sum of dates, facts, formulas, theo-
ries, and other concepts that are often referred to as
“Googleable knowledge” ­because they can easily be
found in a Google search. Skills is the application of
the knowledge. And at the innermost core of educa-
tional experiences are attitudes and values. ­Great
teachers know that every­thing a student learns is some
combination of knowledge, skills, and attitudes as ex-
plained in Chapter 3.
Some of ­these macro-­level objectives are based on
state or local standards, ­others are based on institutional

Figure 5.1. ​The New Black Box of Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Pedagogical (Content) Knowledge

Quality instruction and management:
methodologies, activities, strategies

Instructional Design
Aesthetically pleasing,
intuitive maneuverability,
technological time-savers
Tools
Quality teaching
and evaluation
Mind, Brain, and Education resources
Principles, Tenets
Content and Instructional Guidelines
Knowledge from the learning sciences
Subject area
expertise

Strong Learning Community

Quality student-teacher relationships
 Designing Learning and Instruction 77

Figure 5.2. ​A 12-Step Instructional Design Process

1 Course 8 Live class 9 Synchronous

objectives slides class

2 Topic 7 Quiz 10 Evaluation as

order questions a teaching tool

3 Meso-level 6 Discussion 11 Communication

objectives Board prompt clarity

4 Pre-class 5 Record 12 Time priority

slides pre-class video shifts

missions, and yet o ­ thers are de­cided by teachers them-
selves. This first step, in­de­pen­dent of where the objec-
tive comes from, requires teachers to break down all of
their learning goals into knowledge, skills, and atti-
tudes as shown in Chapter 3.
Step 2: Topic Order
Once teachers have de­cided on the objectives, they
then need to choose the topics and their order. Some
­people consider the topics to be the curriculum of
the class, but it is ­really much more detailed as all of
the competencies—­knowledge, skills, and attitudes—­
are broken down into their smallest parts. By disag-
gregating the topics in this way, teachers facilitate ­later
choices of evaluation criteria and activities, meaning
Step 2 saves teachers a g­ reat deal of time in the long run.
Once the topics are chosen, they are spaced out
over the semester-­long modules, the sum total of which
should help teachers and students reach the macro ob-
jectives in Step 1. (While not an obligatory structure,
our courses divide the semester into 15 weeks, with a
topic each week.) T ­ hese dif­fer­ent topics can be used to
outline the course calendar, which is published in the
LMS and shared with the learning community.
Step 3: Meso-Level Objectives Including
Bundle Building
should somehow contribute to the macro-­level objec-
tive, and should also be broken down into knowledge,
skills, and attitudes. To define the topical objectives
and break them down into their smaller parts, expert
teachers research to stay up-­to-­date. This research in-
volves exploring the topic and all of the dif­fer­ent tools
that can help reach the objectives within it. ­These tools
and resources can be used to develop the bundles, or
mini-­libraries, which can l­ ater be shared with students
and used to differentiate homework.
While not obligatory, we create at least one bundle
per weekly topic. This helps or­ga­nize readings, videos,
podcasts, apps, games, software, as well as traditional
resources, like worksheets and readings for use to sup-
port learners through multiple modalities. ­These re-
sources are listed in the LMS and hyperlinked directly
to the resources, creating ­free and easy access. We do
this ­because it allows students to begin at their own
starting point autonomously and differentiate home-
work. ­Great teachers ask students to help in the con-
struction of the bundles, which teach invaluable
research skills, save teachers time, and make students
co-­constructors of their own learning. Student use of
the bundles also enriches contributions to the synchro-
nous class as students arrive with lots of dif­fer­ent per-
spectives, not just a single view from one textbook.
Step 4: Pre-Class Slides

The meso-­level objectives are based on each topic The fourth step is to create the pre-­class slides for the
and their (weekly) module. Each topic-­level objective flipped class. Some ­ people call ­these pre­ sen­
ta­
tions
78 Bringing the Neuroscience of Learning to Online Teaching
“Power­Points” or “slide decks” or “flipped video slides.”
Teachers create the slide deck based on the objectives
of the weekly topic and based on the information that
is reinforced in the bundles. The pre-­class slides serve
to off-­load content knowledge, freeing up time in the
synchronous class for debate, clarifications, and other
collaborative work. The pre-­class slide deck also docu-
ments the expected knowledge that students should
dominate on each topic, meaning that if students miss
class, they can still stay on top of content knowledge.
Once the slide deck is created, teachers can make the
pre-­class video.
Step 5: Record the Pre-Class Video
The pre-­class video is made using the pre-­class slides, or
the other way around. A teacher might create a teach-
ing video and then create the slides to accompany it.
The video highlights the main content knowledge of
the weekly topic. Pre-­class videos serve to off-­load some
of the dates, facts, formulas, concepts, and other
knowledge-­ based information vital to the topic, but
which is better presented asynchronously. If informa-
tion is shared in a pre-­class video, students can review it
at their own pace, and as many times as they feel neces-
sary. This lowers the pressure on students, and provides
the time to fill in any gaps before coming to the class.
The pre-­class video can be an entire class (20–60
minutes long), or several smaller videos (4–8 minutes
each), or just “bookend” videos, in which teachers
Figure 5.3. ​Bloom’s Taxonomy and the Flipped
Classroom
Space Time Bloom’s Taxonomy
Create
Evaluate
in Class Work Synchronous
Analyze
Apply
Understand
At Home Asynchronous
Remember
rec­ord a short, 1-­minute video at the beginning and
end of a video on the topic prepared by someone ­else.
The objective of the pre-­class video is to assure that the
“big ideas” are clear and documented and that deeper
learning is pos­si­ble when meeting synchronously.
A key to flipping is in the se­lection of the video
content. To determine the content of the video, teachers
can ask themselves, “What is the best use of my syn-
chronous time?” To create the time for ­those synchro-
nous activities, every­thing ­else can be off-­loaded to the
video. This means that if a teacher wants to do ­things
that are more application based or do a collaborative
activity in the synchronous class, then the prerequisite
information can be shared in the video beforehand. This
leverages the use of this technology to support our learn-
ing goals while creating more time for ­things that can
only be achieved synchronously, such as sharing, group
work, social–­emotional check-­ins, and so on.
One way to think about this is to use Bloom’s
Taxonomy in an inverse fashion (Figure 5.3): Things
that are basic knowledge—dates, facts, figures, formu-
las, concepts—can be off-loaded onto the pre-class
video, while higher-order thinking tasks, including ap-
plication (skills) and evaluation (attitudes) can be ad-
dressed in the synchronous class.
Step 6: Discussion Board Prompt
The sixth step is to use the pre-­class slide deck to create
a discussion board prompt. The discussion board is a
space to create community. To guide the development
of the prompt, teachers think of ways to ensure en-
gagement by soliciting opinions, encouraging creativ-
ity, and requiring evidence. To lower cognitive load,
the instructions and grading rubric of the discussion
boards should be the same e­ very week; the only t­hing
that changes is the prompt itself. Students are asked to
not only respond to the prompt, but to also reply to at
least two other learners and engage ­others in a sincere
discussion around the ideas. Students are given exten-
sive feedback on their work, as well as a detailed rubric
like the one in ­Table 5.1 for upper grades and univer-
sity, which can be modified for lower grades.
The key to a good prompt is that t­ here are no right
or wrong answers; that the prompts should naturally
lead to other questions; and the questions are transdis-
ciplinary in structure. Some discussion board ques-
tions we have used in our Neuroscience of Learning
course in the past include the following:
• When do you do your “best” learning? How do
you know? What do the per­for­mance outcomes
look like? Is ­there any reliable data to support
Table 5.1. Discussion Board Rubric
RATINGS
Inadequate or
Criteria Complete Partially Complete Incomplete No Submission
FOCUS-Original Post 11.25 pts 7.5 pts 3.75 pts 0.0 pts 11.25 pts
Post is well developed Makes statements Makes statements Makes statements Makes statements
and fully addresses all (and/or agrees or (and/or agrees or (and/or agrees or (and/or agrees or
aspects of given disagrees with others) disagrees with others) disagrees with others) disagrees with others)
assignment (answers and addresses all and addresses some but without evidence that are out of context
the discussion board aspects of the question aspects of the question to support position or irrelevant
question)
COHERENCE- 11.25 pts 7.5 pts 3.75 pts 0.0 pts 11.25 pts
Original Post Includes Evaluates and Applies and analyzes Summarizes some Does not explain
and applies course synthesizes course most relevant course relevant course relevant course
concepts, theories, or concepts, theories, or concepts, theories, or concepts, theories, or concepts, theories, or
materials; writes materials correctly, materials correctly materials materials
clearly using examples
CONTEXT-Original 11.25 pts 7.5 pts 3.75 pts 0.0 pts 11.25 pts
Post Applies relevant Applies relevant Applies relevant Contributes some Does not contribute
professional, personal, professional, personal, professional, personal, professional, personal, professional, personal,
or other real-world or other real-world or other real-world or other real-world or other real-world
experiences and experiences and/or experiences experiences that may experiences
extends the dialogue extends the dialogue or may not relate to
by responding to the by responding to the course content
examples of peers examples of peers
EVIDENCE-Original 11.25 pts 7.5 pts 3.75 pts 0.0 pts 11.25 pts
Post Supports position Validates position with Consistently supports Establishes relevant Does not establish
beyond assigned applicable resources position with position but does relevant position; does
reading; clearly and supports the additional resources; minimal outside not provide citations
articulates and defends learning of others provides citations most research; provides
beliefs; displays critical through the of the time citations some of the
thinking and contribution of time
intellectual humility; additional resources;
correctly cites sources consistently provides
citations
TIMELINESS- 5.0 pts 0.0 pts 5.0 pts
Original Post On Time Late
Peer Reply 1 22.5 pts 15.0 pts 7.5 pts 0.0 pts 22.5 pts
Responds to fellow Provides substantive, Provides generally Provides some Does not respond to
learners, relating the encouraging, and substantive, feedback to one other fellow learners
discussion to relevant constructive feedback encouraging, and student but
course concepts and in 75 to 100 words constructive feedback superficially (may be
providing substantive (may be too long or too long or too brief)
feedback too brief)
TIMELINESS-Peer 2.5 pts 0.0 pts 2.5 pts
Reply 1 On Time Late
Peer Reply 2 22.5 pts 15.0 pts 7.5 pts 0.0 pts 22.5 pts
Responds to fellow Provides substantive, Provides generally Provides some Does not respond to
learners, relating the encouraging, and substantive, feedback to one other fellow learners
discussion to relevant constructive feedback encouraging, and student but
course concepts and in 75 to 100 words constructive feedback superficially (may be
providing substantive (may be too long or too long or too brief)
feedback too brief)
TIMELINESS-Peer 2.5 pts 0.0 pts 2.5 pts
Reply 2 On Time Late
TOTAL: 100 pts
Source: PsycE1609 (Tokuhama-Espinosa, Volkman, & Borja, 2018)

79
80 Bringing the Neuroscience of Learning to Online Teaching
the perceived gain in effectiveness and/or
efficacy?
• Learning requires memory. How do you best
remember new facts, skills, or attitudes? What
research supports your method?
For primary, ­middle, and high schools, the discus-
sion board can be the essential questions being studied
at the moment.
• In 5th grade, a prompt could be, “What can
affect the relationship between numbers?”
(Catholic Schools of the Diocese of Buffalo,
2012).
• In 2nd grade, it might be, “Why do we
estimate?” (Downey Unified School District,
2020).
• In kindergarten the prompt might ask,
“Why do people work?” (Utah State Board
of Education, 2020).
While not required, in the courses we have of-
fered, we give half of the discussion board grade for
the initial reply, and half the points for the two replies
to peers, which emphasizes building up the learning
community.
Step 7: Quiz Questions
The weekly quiz is also based on the pre-­class slides.
Frequent low-­stakes testing is a fabulous way to en-
hance memory (see Chapter 2), and teachers can le-
verage this to assure that every­body takes the quiz at
least once before the synchronous class. This improves
the likelihood that every­one shows up to the live class
with a certain level of shared vocabulary, which leads
to deeper discussions. In our class, we have no limit on
the number of times a person can take the quiz, and
we only keep the highest score. This motivates stu-
dents to learn from their m ­ istakes and retake the quiz
­until they get a perfect score. To write good quiz ques-
tions, teachers can think about the basic knowledge
and vocabulary they want to be able to use with the
students on that topic of the week and frame ques-
tions around them.
Step 8: Live Class Slides
Teachers can use the answers from the discussion
board, patterns of errors in the quiz, and/or questions
from students to devise the content of the live, syn-
chronous slide deck. Additionally, in our class we take
questions that have come up on the “content discussion
board” and chat ideas from the previous week’s 3-2-1
reflection to add to the live class slide deck.
The idea of the live class slide deck is to go deep,
not wide. Teachers can carefully select a small number
of concepts and use student queries around them to
frame the content of the synchronous class. This
means that the live class is based on student needs and
questions. This structure guarantees that the synchro-
nous meeting time prioritizes student voice by using
their exact words and asking them to elaborate as a
way to start classroom discussion.
Step 9: Synchronous Encounter
It is best to begin online classes in the same way that
teachers begin their live face-­to-­face classes in a tradi-
tional classroom, with a personal touch. Some teach-
ers log into their online classroom 15–20 minutes
before the start time in order to welcome ­people by
name as they join. They ask them about their days
and help them transition mentally from where they
­were before class and on to the course agenda. This
sometimes means letting students share some highs
or lows of life. Teachers know how to empathetically
reply as well as how to work in areas of concern into
the class conversation. For example, if students men-
tion how tired and stressed they are, the teacher can
integrate the role of sleep in learning or how to man-
age stress into the class content. And if students share
comments or questions about content, teachers can
integrate ­these into the live class, ensuring students
feel heard.
Protocols for a Smooth Class. ­There are several
protocols that can help run a smooth class and that all
expert teachers follow:
1. To reduce cognitive load and maintain
focus, use a consistent instructional design.
2. To respect students’ rights, start class by
announcing it will be recorded.
3. To empathize with the effort of making it on
time, thank students for arriving punctually.
Students’ lives (and that of their family
members) are busy, yet they made it! Thank
them for being there.
4. To personalize the class and call people by
name, ask everyone to turn on their cameras
and make sure that their names are written
the way they want to be called by others.
5. To let them know you are there for
them, and to take roll, ask a quick question
that should be replied to in the chat. This can
 Designing Learning and Instruction 81
be as broad as, “Please say hello in the chat
and let us know if there is something on your
mind that you want us to be sure and address
today,” or as specific as, “In the chat, write
down what you think is the main idea of the
pre-class video and any questions you might
have about it.”
6. To clarify lesson objectives, post a slide
with the focus of the day.
7. To reinforce learning, structure the
video conferencing screen layout in a way
that shows everyone’s faces as well as the
slides.
8. To facilitate communication, share a copy
of the slides in the chat and/or link to your
online classroom.
9. To flip the class successfully and ensure
a student-centered class, use the students’
own comments as the starting point of class.
These ideas can come from the discussion
board, class reflections, or other student-
generated comments. Include 2 to 12
students’ ideas in each class, and ask them
to elaborate on their ideas for the group.
Encourage others to respond and debate
these ideas.
10. To maintain and focus attention, respond
to chat inquiries immediately. Ask a teaching
assistant or a student to monitor the chat
for you and call attention to areas that need
clarity.
11. To keep students alert, cold call
participants and ask them respond to
questions related to the pre-class video
definitions, synthesize something just said, or
react to an idea.
12. To ensure authentic learning, make time
for one or more breakout rooms in which
the students do small-group work. Send
groups of two to four to collaborate and
solve a problem, share opinions, and/or
empathize on issues. Be sure they have clear
directions. For example, “Go into the small
group and tell each other ‘I see . . . ​I think . . . ​
I wonder . . .’ ” or “Share your one-minute
paper results,” or “Come back prepared to
offer suggestions about. . . .”
13. To ensure that the goal of the small-
group work is clear, ask a student to repeat
the instructions before sending them to the
breakout rooms.
14. To hear as many different voices as
possible, cold call on someone who has not
shared and ask them what happened in their
small group.
15. To build community, ask the person who
you called on to say who they shared the
breakout room with by name.
16. To improve synthesizing skills, ask
the student to say what the group found
or decided (not what they personally
think).
17. To ensure objectives are met, before
ending, give a summary of the entire class,
including the main ideas from the students’
discussions and the questions as well as the
key findings from the breakout groups.
18. To reflect on learning, leave 3–5 minutes at
the end of class for this activity. Ask students
to think about what they learned (three
ideas); what are they now curious about (two
ideas); and what might they change based
on the information shared (one idea). This
3-2-1 reflection helps consolidate learning.
Teachers can use this time to review what has
happened in the chat to ensure there are no
loose ideas that should be addressed before
closing.
19. To end on a high note, summarize and end
punctually, thanking the students for their
contributions.
20. To give students a sense of support, stick
around for a few minutes after class and
invite any lingering students to share any
questions or loose ends.
Synchronous time should be devoted to helping
students get clarifications, deepen understanding by
seeing real-­life applications of the information, and
build the learning community. This is best done by let-
ting the students lead and ensuring they are the center
of the class.
Step 10: Evaluation as a Teaching Tool
Of the 12 steps described ­here, three (10, 11, 12) are
­things that are done throughout the teaching and
learning pro­cess, not just at the end. Step 10 is the
reminder to use evaluation as a teaching tool
throughout the course. Evaluation includes diagnosis,
assessment, feedback, and/or formative embedded as-
sessment, ­depending on the time that it occurs within
the learning pro­ cess. Evaluation occurs both asyn-
chronously and synchronously. Asynchronously, stu-
dents can be evaluated through their quiz scores, their
discussion board responses, and their reflections.
82 Bringing the Neuroscience of Learning to Online Teaching

Figure 5.4. ​Asynchronous and Synchronous Evaluation Activities

Quiz Watch Respond Explore

1. Asynchronous pre-class video(s) to Discussion Board the Bundles
prompt

Content and Logistics DB Key themes emerge; Evaluation is on-going,

Points of clarification
LIVE CLASS embedded, continual,
Slide deck; and formative.
Recorded session
2. Synchronous
Participation
(Sections)
(3-2-1 Reflections)

(Workshops) Evaluation
is well-documented.

Semester-Long Project
3. Asynchronous

Homework: Do-Overs and In-depth Exploration

Source: Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2016

Figure 5.5. ​Evaluation: Same Tools, Different Purposes

KNOWLEDGE: Worth knowing Content-area knowledge

"Googleable memoristic" (knowledge) Dates, facts, formulas, theories,
concepts, places, names, etc.
("to know")

Important to know
SKILLS: and be able to do Skills
rehearsal and practice (skills) Strategies, methods, class activities
("to know how to do")

Significant learning Big Ideas:

ATTITUDES: (attitudes and values) What students remember long
1+1=3 after the course ends (values)
("to know how to be")

For example,
"appreciate problems as opportunities";
"perseverance and grit";
"value transdisciplinary thinking";
"value teamwork"

Source: Author based on Wiggins & McTighe, 2005

Synchronously, students are evaluated for live class
participation and through the peer and teacher feed-
back on their ideas. In addition to asynchronous and
synchronous activities, ­great teachers do something
that has not traditionally occurred: include additional
time to permit for “do-­overs” or rewrites. This means
that ­every graded ele­ment of the class can be improved
on, and students are invited to rewrite work they want
to resubmit. In our class, students are given a week to
do this ­after receiving initial feedback.
 Designing Learning and Instruction 83

Figure 5.6. ​Great Instructional Design: The Balance

Long-Term
Projects
INDIVIDUAL

• Pre-Class Video Individual ASYNCHRONOUS WORK

Deep Dive
• Objective: Dominate • Bundle Exploration
core concepts, • Quiz
theories,
vocabulary
Ground Work Explore

Discussion Board
Office Hours Clarify Community
initial prompt reply

Connect
Re-work it!
• Retake the Quiz & Reflect SYNCHRONOUS WORK
• Re-write work • Real time meeting
for a better grade • 3-2-1 Reflection
Individual • Breakout room,
Deep Dive small-group activities
Peer Feedback
on Discussion Board
• Sections
GROUP
• Workshops

Repurposing Old Tools. The beauty of this new
instructional design is in the use of familiar tools—­
discussion boards, group work, reflection papers,
­quizzes—but for new purposes.
Quizzes, reflection papers, and discussion boards
are familiar tools that are traditionally used to evaluate.
Great teachers use these same tools, but for slightly dif-
ferent purposes. Rather than as a summative measure,
quizzes are used to consolidate knowledge. Rather
than a check on reading comprehension, discussion
boards are used to create community. Rather than a
space for opinions, reflection papers are used to docu-
ment learning progress. Great teachers also know and
use less conventional tools, including gaming and apps,
to gauge learning advances. In-class polling can be
used as an engaging activity, but also to measure micro
advances on sub-domain learning competencies. In
short, just as there are more tools than ever to guide
instruction, there are more tools than ever to improve
evaluation. Great teachers choose tools wisely based on
their objectives based on their benefits and limitation.
Step 11: Clear Communication
Step 11 is on good teachers’ minds before, during, and
after the course. Teachers think about the student–­
­
teacher exchange as well as communication between
students and with f­amily members that is needed
(Figure 4.3). The best teachers anticipate questions
and plot this onto a decision tree that shows a quick
path to answers to visibly share policy. Dif­fer­ent com-
munication channels are clearly assigned to specific
types of questions (Figure 4.4). Within-­platform emails
can be used for general queries. Office hours can be
used for personal queries. Each tool should be assigned
a specific communication type to ensure clarity.
Teachers ensure regular contact, and their stu-
dents know when and how to expect information.
This can be ongoing, such as a discussion board on
content questions and another for logistical questions,
or it can be weekly, as through special announce-
ments. Teachers can arrive to class early and have
open question time, or they can agree to touch base
84 Bringing the Neuroscience of Learning to Online Teaching
with students through a weekly recording. In­de­pen­
dent of the modality, regularity should be a priority.
Fi­
nally, feedback should be more dialogic than
unidirectional to enhance communication. Teachers
can use exchanges on the live chat during the syn-
chronous class to respond immediately to questions.
They can also give feedback through comments or in a
Google Drive so that students can reply to the feed-
back. This creates a conversation about where the stu-
dent stands in terms of learning, rather than a single
static comment.
Step 12: Priority Shifts in Time Use
Time, at all levels, has changed education forever
­because of our move online. This means:
• Saving time by off-loading content to pre-class
videos and flipping;
• Spending time listening to students;
• Making more time for collaborative, small-
group work;
• Baking in more time for do-overs thanks to
time saved by selecting the right tech tools;
• Closing the summer learning gaps by
changing the school calendar for year-round
schooling;
• Creating professional development time to give
teacher support to decide objectives, identify
evaluation criteria, and choose appropriate
activities.
Education ­will never be the same again, due in
g­ reat part to rethinking time. For details about each of
­these ideas, please see Chapter 4.
PROS AND CONS OF THIS
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN
This new instructional design f­avors deeper learning
experiences and lends itself to the implementation of
the 40 pedagogies explained in Chapter 2. To apply
this, teachers know they must pivot hard to adjust.
Many w ­ ill ask themselves if it is worth it. Like ­every
question in education, the answer is, “It depends.”
Teachers whose goals include quality learning that
maximizes the potential of ­every student know the an-
swer is yes. However, if a teacher’s goal is to “cover”
curriculum in a fixed time period, the answer is no.
Teachers who want to differentiate as a goal know this
new instructional design is the key. But t­ hose teachers
focused solely on standards might not see the benefits
of this change. Teachers who long for ­human touch
and personalization in learning exchanges see why this
new design facilitates relationship building. But ­those
who are only waiting it out u ­ ntil education finds a way
back to the face-­to-­face learning of old might not. That
is, a teacher’s goals for their professional practice ­will
determine ­whether or not this change is worth the ef-
fort. Most ­great teachers have already de­cided to go
down the path of modernization and just need a bit
more encouragement and guidance to do this.
Moving online in a quality instructional design re-
quires several ­mental shifts, and a positive attitude
­toward the challenge. To put more focus on the hu-
manistic side of teaching, student needs, and be able to
personalize, differentiate, and document through
more resources than ever, it ­will mean a change of
mindset and rethinking time. Moving online can be
hard and full of challenges, but it is also wonderful and
full of opportunities.
 CHAPTER 6
The Celebration
Enjoy Our New Online Home
As I wrote this book, we moved from Ec­ua­dor to New
York. To my delight, our new apartment has a washer,
a luxury in Manhattan. The clothes washer is perhaps
one of the biggest social paradigm changers in ­human
history (Worstall, 2013). Before the washer, w ­ omen
spent the better part of their days carry­ing ­water from
wells, boiling it, wringing out clothes, and hanging
them to dry. With the advent of the washer, ­women
suddenly had time. And they went to work. Society
was changed, economies w ­ ere modified, consumer
trends ­were altered, and the world was a better place.
­Today, a similar revolutionary shift has resulted
thanks to the insertion of online learning into our
lives. Before the clothes washer, p ­ eople simply ac-
cepted that life had to be disproportionately spent
­doing this task by hand. Before the pandemic, many
believed “good” education only took place in a physi-
cal classroom; kids had to be divided by age and not
ability; standardized tests w ­ ere the norm; the school
year was 10 months long; and most formal learning
­stopped ­after high school or college. While it might
take some historical perspective taking to truly appre-
ciate what the move to online ­really means for educa-
tion, I like to reflect on my washing machine and the
time it saves me for more impor­tant ­things in life.
Our move online has given us pause to rethink the
entire education system, and t­ here are some gems that
­will stay, not ­because of a pandemic or other prob­
lems, but rather ­because they are superior ways of
educating. T ­ hese long-­lasting ideas, which w
­ ill endure
well beyond the need to move online due to the pan-
demic, are the cele­ bration with which we want to
close this book.
Mastery Learning. Au­ then­ tic Activities. More
and Better Tools. As we move online, education and
its potential to change society have been magnified.
­There are more possibilities for true mastery learning,
better options for au­
then­ tic evaluation, and now a
hundred times more tools available than in traditional
classrooms. Digital educational resources have blown
the classroom wide open and created access to a
85
greater variety of deeper learning tools like never be-
fore, giving many more students the chance to learn
more thoroughly and more enjoyably than ever.
Hopefully ­after the pandemic, public libraries equipped
with good Internet ­ will also address prob­ lems of
access.
Better Pedagogies. T ­ here are more and better
pedagogies available online thanks to an improved
understanding of how the brain learns. Using pedago-
gies like “flipping” and “interleaving” are all pos­si­ble
in traditional classrooms, but their impact is magnified
online ­because the time is shortened for setup, execu-
tion, and documentation. Encouraging “do-­overs,” the
use of “frequent, low-­stakes testing,” and “collabora-
tive teaching and learning” are also pos­si­ble in our old
classrooms, but are even better online b ­ ecause tech-
nology can be leveraged to create more time for the
­human aspects of teaching. Deeper learning through
“student-­led curriculum,” “social contagion,” and “le-
veraging Theory of Mind” are also all pos­si­ble in face-­
to-­face classrooms, but their effects are amplified in
online settings b­ ecause of the transparency of learning
goals and the up-­close interaction of learners.
Instructional Design. Moving online has also
helped emphasize the role and importance of design in
teaching. All classes, in traditional classrooms as well
as virtual, benefit from good design; however, t­hose
online have additional gains. The benefits of online in-
structional design are that long-­term objectives visibly
serve as a compass, and the likelihood of achievement
is enhanced due to incremental rather than summa-
tive learning goals that are made module by module.
Instructional design that begins with the end in mind
communicates objectives clearly, and in which as-
sumptions are articulated and shared with the group,
improve the probability of deeper learning. Clear,
clean course design that values aesthetics and prizes
intuition makes online navigation even easier than
many face-­to-­face classes. A good balance of tools, the
ability to take advantage of multimodality, and design
86 Bringing the Neuroscience of Learning to Online Teaching
thinking that takes advantage of the wisdom of the
group are also enhanced online. The greater use of dif-
ferentiated evaluation, the application of a feedfor-
ward mentality, the broad se­lection of tools, and the
ability to go deeper through flipping are all added ben-
efits of a good online instruction design.
Time. Communication. Evaluation. T ­here is a
new conception of time online, and ­great teachers ap-
preciate the distinct roles that asynchronous and syn-
chronous activities play in the learning cycle. The
importance of good communication among all actors—­
students, parents, teachers, administration—is more
impor­tant than ever. The contact and content of our
emails, instant chatting in the live class, office hours,
phone calls, announcements, newsletters, and other
communication tools take on a central role in relation-
ship building, and their regularity streamlines infor-
mation delivery and understanding. And evaluation
has changed from standardized tests to a broad range
of creative tools that value products, pro­cesses, and
pro­gress.
Mastery learning, au­then­tic teaching, new tools,
better pedagogies, instructional design, time priorities,
communication mechanisms, and even evaluation
have changed. ­These are uncertain times, but they are
exciting and the face of education ­will never be the
same again. Hopefully, readers ­will have taken a few
impor­tant lessons from this book.
Lesson: Let the Computers Do What Computers
Do Best, and Let P ­ eople Do What They Do Best.
Technology is ­here to stay. Most recognize that tech-
nology is a tool, and neither inherently “good” nor
“bad”; it is the way we use it that counts. Teachers save
time using technology, which they can then use to do
the more humane parts of our job, like motivating,
building up resiliency, and caring for our students.
Synchronous time should prioritize social–­emotional
learning, ­mental health, and critical thinking. To give
us the time needed for attention to ­these activities,
teachers can off-­load content to pre-­class videos and to
digital resources.
Lesson: Flip for More Time to Nurture Curiosity.
Flipping is one of the best ­things to happen to educa-
tion in a long time. By recording a content video be-
fore the class rather than taking up that time with a
lecture, teachers can make more time for student-­
centered exploration, questioning, experimentation,
and collaboration (Bergmann & Sams, 2012). This
means students can actually learn more through
deeper content probes when they meet in the live,
synchronous class. Giving information in the pre-­class
video documents core understanding, vocabulary, and
some of the main theories before the class. It permits
students time to watch the video from the safety of
their own homes as many times as they like, meaning
the initial intake of knowledge is comfortable and un-
threatening. Done successfully, flipping can improve
student learning outcomes.
Lesson: Meet Students at Their Own Starting
Points. ­Humans vary greatly. Dif­fer­ent p ­ eople need
dif­fer­ent ­things at dif­fer­ent points in their learning
pro­cesses, and require dif­fer­ent amounts of time to
reach learning goals. In order to re­spect the fact that
some kids ­will come into our class with a more solid
foundation of prerequisite knowledge than o ­ thers, we
need to design our courses with “safety nets” for kids
who are ­behind and “open skies” for the highfliers. By
crafting courses guided by Universal Design for
Learning, we can help ­every child find success. To dif-
ferentiate, the key to success is the se­lection of a range
of resources that permits ­every kid to start learning
about a topic within their comfort zone. This means
accepting that while many kids ­will look “average” on
a bell curve, t­here ­really is no such t­hing as average
when it comes to ­humans and learning (Rose, 2016).
We need to attend to t­ hose kids who appear to be out-
liers as successfully as we attend to the kids in the
­middle of the pack by choosing a variety of resources
for our bundles that span the range of learner needs.
Lesson: Learning Online Can Be Personal and
Intimate. Social contagion is real. With the right class-
room management, ­people can connect and learning
can be intimate. This means using new tools, like
managing Zoom breakout rooms, facilitating commu-
nity building through discussion boards, and offering
dialogic feedback. Social contagion is built around the
use of students’ queries and observations as the center
of class time, and managing digital resources to off-­
load content delivery so ­there is more time to listen to
students. Being more personal online is facilitated by
new communication tools, but more importantly by
teachers’ positive mindsets and knowledge that they
can infect ­others with their emotional states.
THERE’S NEVER BEEN A BETTER TIME
TO BE AN EDUCATOR
­ here are many challenges to this move online, and
T
their paired opportunities are just now coming to
light, but coming to light they are. This is teachers’
 The Celebration 87
clothes-­
washer moment—­ a true “watershed” in
education—­but it may take some time and perspective
taking to appreciate how the move has and ­will con-
tinue to change us profoundly as teachers.
What do we keep?
What do we toss out?
What do we give away?
What do we store?
What do we replace?
What do we need to acquire?
When we packed up our home in Quito, we gave
away many ­things. We did so ­because we ­were headed
to a new city that had access to dif­fer­ent, and in some
cases, better t­hings, and ­because the p ­ eople who re-
ceived our giveaways had many more basic needs than
we did. Win-­win.
But we also took the time to toss out some t­hings
we had been hauling around with us for years but
which had neither intrinsic nor personal value and to
which we w ­ ere not strongly tied. This gave us less to
pack, and recentered us on what was r­ eally impor­tant
to keep. My photos, for example, are nonnegotiable
items with which I would never part, but rather than
bring them all, I chose a representative sampling of the
best to accompany me and stored the rest. This meant
that I could carefully and purposefully display them in
my new space, while leaving room for new ones. Our
big yard was replaced by busy New York streets, which
took some adjusting to, especially for our dogs, who
­were intrigued, deceived, and then marveled by the
differences. To make our new place our place, we had
to acquire t­hings, both physical and cultural. New
mannerisms with the ­people around us, new customs
as we adjusted to the weather and daylight hours.
With each new acquisition we had to make mul-
tiple judgment calls. Is this r­eally better than my old
way of ­doing ­things? Am I being true to what I value
most, think, or believe, as I take on this new way of
being? ­Every time I could respond in the affirmative, I
knew the acquisition was the right one. As teachers
move online, they w­ ill need to do the same kinds of
self-­questioning.
What do we keep?
What do we toss out?
What do we give away?
What do we store?
What do we replace?
What do we need to acquire?
These questions force even the best teachers to
­
doubt. And that’s normal. It’s not only normal, it’s
smart. Look before you leap. It is easy to rush into deci-
sions based on fear, but the choices made in this way
are often regretted b ­ ecause they are not owned. To own
choices and ground decisions, ­great teachers return to
what is r­eally impor­tant. Many ­things w ­ ill have to be
tossed out in this move, and new ­things need to replace
them. But at its core, g­ reat online teaching has some
nonnegotiables as well, like my photos. If we want to
keep deeper learning based on personalization and dif-
ferentiation, aim for mastery over standards, cultivate
growth mindsets, and form a society that dares to err
and innovate ­because evaluation is no longer a threat
but a friend to learning, then move we must.
As I sit h
­ ere in my new living room, looking out at
my new view of the world, I find myself getting up to
adjust the a­ ngle of a photo or move a piece of furniture
a bit to the side—­ normal actions as one s­ettles in.
Teachers know that the ongoing tweaks are a part of the
job; in fact, they are the job. Adjusting to contexts, to
needs, and to the students is what we do. As the world
changes, learner profiles change, and b ­ ecause of our de-
votion to the profession, we pivot even though it might
mean an exhausting move. The new view is worth it.
Moving is never easy, but the right attitude goes a
long way to lighting the path. This means we look at
the newness as challenges and not as threats. The
world is full of won­der and awe. “Have to do” turns
into “get to do.” Prob­lems actually are opportunities.
There has never been a better time to be an
­
educator.
 Appendix A

Rubric: How to Identify Quality Digital Educational Resources

Criterion 1 2 3 4
Objective(s) and Goal(s)
The resource identifies clear educational objective(s).
The objectives and content are easily understood.
Legal and Technical (Intellectual Property)
The digital educational resource complies with copyright laws (Open or Creative Commons License)
and is cited or acknowledged correctly.
The digital educational resource can be easily reused, revised, remixed, and shared with other
materials to meet the particular teaching and learning needs of the course.
User interface components (buttons, menus, icons, scroll bars, etc.) are consistently organized and
allow students to easily navigate the site.
The design of the screen and the navigation systems are attractive according to the target audience.
Content
The content is correct and up-to-date.
The content includes meaningful concepts, models, and principles or the like, and skills appropriate
to the discipline and allows a deep understanding in accordance with the target group.
The content is appropriate to the knowledge, abilities, and skills of the students.
The content is culturally appropriate and does not contain any racial or gender bias.
References: The resource cites references (sources of information).
Consistency with citations: What is stated by the resources is consistent with their references.
Concise, precise content, and in adequate quantity: The resource contains an adequate amount of
information for its duration in the application and use process.
Pedagogy and Didactics (Effectiveness in Terms of Learning)
The digital educational resource is used to present relevant real-life tasks or problems that progress
from the simple to the complex.
The digital educational resource can be easily integrated into current curriculum and pedagogy.
The digital educational resource can be easily integrated and enhanced with a variety of courses and
teaching/learning environments.
The digital educational resource gets and maintains the attention and interest of students.
The digital educational resource is used to devise interactive ways to leverage the resources to
promote student engagement in the problem-solving process.
The digital educational resource helps students remember, relate to, or apply prior knowledge, skills,
experience, and so on.
Background: The resource provides enough background information to place the student in the
context of prior knowledge.
The digital educational resource is used to present new content appropriate to the needs and
abilities of students.

88
 Appendix A 89

Criterion 1 2 3 4
The digital educational resource integrates multimedia that extends the quantity and nature of the
content.
The digital educational resource provides supplemental materials, which extend and enrich teaching
and learning.
The digital educational resource facilitates flexible learning by allowing students to control the
speed, order, and nature of their learning.
The digital educational resource provides a solid framework for the development of knowledge and
skills.
The digital educational resource allows the transfer of new learning to different tasks, problems, and
contexts.
The digital educational resource promotes student reflection on new learning and their own
processes.
The digital educational resource allows students to consolidate their learning or build personal
meaning through reflection, debate, demonstration of new knowledge or skills, and so on.
The digital educational resource includes interactive instructional activities.
The digital educational resource provides opportunities for task analysis and practical, real-world
problem solving.
Interactions between students are effectively moderated to ensure appropriate behavior on the part
of students.
Design/Usability/Technical Characteristics
The digital educational resource facilitates the understanding of content thanks to its diversity of
elements and hyperlinks of text, images, audio, video, and others.
Use of language adapted to the objectives and audience: The resource uses an efficient and precise
language that is appropriate for its target audience.
The instructional design focuses on the key aspects of learning and lacks distracting features.
The digital educational resource contains embedded feedback, support, and evaluation.
Design encourages repetition, periodicity, review, reproduction, among others, necessary to learn.
Instructional Design/Community/Support/Accessibility Improvement
The design provides open, accessible, and quality content for a broad community of teachers and
students.
Editorial process: An editorial process is identified. Best practices are shared and it helps to avoid
reinventing the wheel.
Editor: It is clear who published the resource.
The editorial process is explicit and clear, it is independent of sponsors, conflicts of interest, and
other sources of bias, and it is recognized in the product obtained.
The platform helps developing countries improve and expand learning to facilitate development
opportunities.
The design offers nonformal and informal pathways of learning and skill development for formal study.
The design facilitates the inclusion of traditionally excluded students.
The community improves the quality of mainstream education and online education, by achieving a
greater awareness of open and inclusive educational practices and diverse perspectives within the
fields of study.
The resource has user guides, tutorial videos, and other materials that help users in managing the
resource.
The resource allows collaboration among institutions, sectors, disciplines, and countries.
Universal technology: The resource employs technologies that are universally available to allow
students access with standard software and equipment.
Maintenance: The resource is maintained so that its text and multimedia elements remain functional.
 References
Abou-­Hanna, J. J., Owens, S. T., Kinnucan, J. A., Mian,
S. I., & Kolars, J. C. (2020). Resuscitating the Socratic
method: Student and faculty perspectives on posing
probing questions during clinical teaching. Academic
Medicine, 96(1), 113–117. https://­doi​.­org​/­10​.­1097​
/­ACM​.­0000000000003580
Acosta-­Tello, E. (2015). Enhancing the online class: Ef-
fective use of synchronous interactive online instruc-
tion. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 17.
Adelstein, D., & Barbour, M. K. (2017). Improving the
K-12 online course design review pro­cess: Experts
weigh in on iNACOL National Standards for Quality
Online Courses. International Review of Research in
Open and Distributed Learning,  18(3). https://­doi​.­org​
/­10​.­19173​/­irrodl​.­v18i3​.­2800
Agarwal, P. K., & Agostinelli, A. (2020). Interleaving in
math: A research-­ based strategy to boost learn-
ing. American Educator, 44(1), 24. https://files.eric​­.ed​
­.gov/fulltext/EJ1249794.pdf
Agarwal, P. K., & Roediger III, H. L. (2018). Lessons for
learning: How cognitive psy­ chol­
ogy informs class-
room practice. Phi Delta Kappan, 100(4), 8–12. https://­
doi​.­org​/­10​.­1177​/­0031721718815666
Agnafors, S., Barmark, M., & Sydsjö, G. (2020). ­Mental
health and academic per­for­mance: A study on se­
lection and causation effects from childhood to
early adulthood. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epi-
demiology, 1–10. https://­doi​.­org​/­10​.­1007​/­s00127​-­020​
-­01934​-­5
Akcaoglu, M., & Lee, E. (2016). Increasing social pres-
ence in online learning through small group discus-
sions. International Review of Research in Open and
Distributed Learning, 17(3), 1–17.
Alcott, B. (2017). Does teacher encouragement influence
students’ educational pro­gress? A propensity-­score
matching analy­sis. Research in Higher Education, 58(7),
773–804.
Alexander, K., Pitcock, S., & Boulay, M. C. (Eds.). (2016).
The summer slide: What we know and can do about sum-
mer learning loss. Teachers College Press.
Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Olson, L. S. (2007).
Lasting consequences of the summer learning gap.
American So­cio­log­i­cal Review, 72(2), 167–180.
90
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2016). Online report card:
Tracking online education in the United States. Babson
Survey Research Group and Quahog Research
Group.
Amaya, P., Agudo, J. E., Sánchez, H., Rico, M., & Hernández-­
Linares, R. (2013). Educational e-­portfolios: Uses
and tools. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93,
1169–1173.
American Farm Bureau Federation. (2020). Fast facts about
agriculture & food. https://­www​.­fb​.­org​/­news​room​/­fast​
-­facts
Anderson, A. S. (2020). One small step in the lecture
hall, one big step for student motivation: Short bursts
of in-­class small group work. Pedagogy in Health Pro-
motion. https://­doi​.­org​/­10​.­1177​/­2373379920963706
Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Minute paper. In T. A.
Angelo & K. P. Cross (Eds.), Classroom assessment tech-
niques: A handbook for college teachers (2nd ed., pp. 148–
153). Jossey-­Bass.
Arnold, A. J., & Winkielman, P. (2020). Smile (but only
deliberately) though your heart is aching: Loneliness
is associated with impaired spontaneous smile mim-
icry. Social Neuroscience, 1–13.
Arslan, S. (2018). Social emotional learning and self-­
regulation: The mediating role of critical thinking.
International Journal of Learning and Change, 10(2),
101–112.
ASCD. (2012). Making the case for educating the ­whole child.
Author.
Bafrooei, K. B., Bafghi, N. H., & Sadati, A. K. (2018). The
role of social–­ emotional competencies and social
teaching practices on students’ emotions: The media-
tion role of teachers’ emotions. Ira­nian Journal of
Emotion and Memory, 1(2).
Baker, B. D., & Di Carlo, M. (2020). The Coronavirus pan-
demic and K–12 education funding. Albert Shanker
Institute.
Baker, L. (2013). Metacognitive strategies. In J. Hattie &
E. M. Anderman (Eds.), International guide to student
achievement (pp. 419–421). Routledge.
Baker, R. S., Bar, M., & Koedinger, K. R. (2018). ­Towards
demonstrating the value of learning analytics for
K–12 education. In D. Niemi, R. D. Pea, B. Saxberg,
 References 91
& R. E. Clark (Eds.), Learning analytics in education
(pp. 49–62). Information Age Publishers.
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content
knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Jour-
nal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.
Bar, M. (2009). The proactive brain: Memory for predic-
tions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences, 364(1521), 1235–1243.
Barto, A. G., Sutton, R. S., & Brouwer, P. S. (1981). Associa-
tive search network: A reinforcement learning associa-
tive memory. Biological Cybernetics, 40(3), 201–211.
Battersby, M. (2016). Enhancing rationality: Heuristics,
biases, and the critical thinking proj­ ect. Informal
Logic, 36(2), 99–120.
Battich, L., Fairhurst, M. & Deroy, O. (2020). Coordinat-
ing attention requires coordinated senses. Psycho-
nomic Bulletin & Review, 27(6), 1126–1138. https://­doi​
.­org​/­10​.­3758​/­s13423​-­020​-­01766​-­z
Baxter, J. A., & Lederman, N. G. (1999). Assessment and
mea­ sure­ ment of pedagogical content knowledge.
In J. Gess-­Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Exam-
ining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 147–161).
Springer.
Belin, P., Fecteau, S., & Bedard, C. (2004). Thinking the
voice: Neural correlates of voice perception. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 8(3), 129–135.
Belkin, L. Y., Kurtzberg, T. R., & Naquin, C. E. (2006).
Emotional contagion in the online environment: Investigat-
ing the dynamics and implications of emotional encoun-
ters in mixed-­motive situations in the electronic context.
­Unpublished paper. https://­www​.­researchgate​.­net​
/­p rofile​ /­Terri​ _­K urtzberg​ /­p ublication​ /­2 28181687​
_­E motional​ _­C ontagion​ _­i n​ _­t he​ _­O nline​ _­E nviron​
ment​ _­I nvestigating​ _­t he​ _­D ynamics​ _­a nd​ _­I mplica​
tions​_­of​_­Emotional​_­Encounters​_­in​_­Mixed​-­Motive​
_­S ituations​_­in​_­the​_­Electronic​_­Context​/­links​/­5 b0​
d8cd0a6fdcc809959412c​/­Emotional​-­Contagion​-­in​
-­t he​-­O nline​-­E nvironment​-­I nvestigating​-­t he​
-­Dynamics​-­and​-­Implications​-­of​-­Emotional​-­Encoun​
ters​-­in​-­Mixed​-­Motive​-­Situations​-­in​-­the​-­Electronic​
-­Context​.­pdf
Bender, A. E. (1981). The my­thol­ogy of food. In P. H.
Fentem (Ed.), Good health—is ­there a choice? (pp. 27–
35). Palgrave.
Berger, J. (2008). Identity signaling, social influence, and
social contagion. In M. J. Prinstein & K. A. Dodge
(Eds.), Understanding peer influence in c­ hildren and ado-
lescents (pp. 181–199). Guilford Press.
Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom:
Reach e­ very student in ­every class ­every day. International
Society for Technology in Education (ISTE).
Birnbaum, M. S., Kornell, N., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A.
(2013). Why interleaving enhances inductive learning:
The roles of discrimination and retrieval. Memory &
Cognition, 41(3), 392–402.
Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Evaluation
Comment, 1(2). https://­eric​.­ed​.­gov​/­​?­id​=­ED053419
Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2 sigma prob­lem: The search for
methods of group instruction as effective as one-­to-­
one tutoring. Educational Researcher,  13(6), 4–16.
https://­doi​.­org​/­10​.­3102​/­0013189X013006004
Boaler, J., Wiliam, D., & Brown, M. (2000). Students’ ex-
periences of ability grouping—­disaffection, polarisa-
tion, and the construction of failure. British Educational
Research Journal, 26(5), 631–648.
Boettcher, J. V. (2007). Ten core princi­ples for designing
effective learning environments: Insights from brain
research and pedagogical theory. Innovate: Journal of
Online Education, 3(3). https://­www​.­learntechlib​.­org​
/­p​/­171446​/­
Bond, M. (2020). Facilitating student engagement
through the flipped classroom approach in K–12: A
systematic review. Computers & Education, 151. https://­
doi​.­org​/­10​.­1016​/­j​.­compedu​.­2020​.­103819
Bonvillain, N. (2019). Language, culture, and communica-
tion: The meaning of messages. Rowman & Littlefield.
Borup, J., & Archambault, L. (2018). K-12 blended and
online competencies, standards, retention, and atti-
tudes. Journal of Online Learning Research, 4(1), 1–3.
Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (Eds.). (2013). Reflec-
tion: Turning experience into learning. Routledge.
Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2020). Emergency remote
teaching in a time of global crisis due to CoronaVirus
pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1),
i–vi.
Bray, B. A., & McClaskey, K. A. (2014). Make learning per-
sonal: The what, who, wow, where, and why. Corwin
Press.
Brown, A. H., & Green, T. D. (2019). The essentials of in-
structional design: Connecting fundamental princi­ples with
pro­cess and practice. Routledge.
Bruhn, A. L., Woods-­Groves, S., & Huddle, S. (2014). A
preliminary investigation of emotional and behav-
ioral screening practices in K–12 schools. Education
and Treatment of C ­ hildren, 37(4), 611–634.
Bruner, J. S. (1960). Constructivism and discovery learn-
ing. Education. https://­www​.­ukessays​.­com​/­essays​
/­education​/­constructivism​-­and​-­discovery​-­learning​
-­education​-­essay​.­php
Brunmair, M., & Richter, T. (2019). Similarity ­matters: A
meta-­analysis of interleaved learning and its moder-
ators. Psychological Bulletin, 145(11), 1029–1052.
Bubb, S., & Jones, M. A. (2020). Learning from the
­COVID-19 home-­schooling experience: Listening to
pupils, parents/carers, and teachers. Improving Schools,
23(3), 209–222.
92 References
Buehl, D. (2007). Modeling self-­questioning on Bloom’s
Taxonomy. OnWEAC.
Buelin, J., Ernst, J. V., Clark, A. C., Kelly, D. P., & DeLuca,
V. W. (2019). Formative evaluation techniques. Tech-
nology and Engineering Teacher, 78(5), 21–23.
Bullock, K. (2011). International Baccalaureate learner pro-
file: Lit­er­a­ture review. http://­www​.­ibo​.­org​/­globalassets​
/­publications​/­ib​-­research​/­iblearnerprofileeng​.­pdf
Burgess, L. G., Riddell, P. M., Fancourt, A., & Murayama,
K. (2018). The influence of social contagion within
education: A motivational perspective. Mind, Brain,
and Education,  12(4), 164–174. https://­doi​.­org​/­10​
.­1111​/­mbe​.­12178
Busselle, R. (2017). Schema theory and ­mental models.
In P. Rössler (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of me-
dia effects (pp. 1–8). John Wiley & Sons.
Bustamante, A. S., Hindman, A. H., Champagne, C. R., &
Wasik, B. A. (2018). Circle time revisited: How do
preschool classrooms use this part of the day? Ele-
mentary School Journal, 118(4), 610–631.
Carlson, S. M., Koenig, M. A., & Harms, M. B. (2013).
Theory of mind. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cogni-
tive Science, 4(4), 391–402.
Carpenter, S. K. (2014). Spacing and interleaving of study
and practice. In V. A. Benassi, C. Overson, & C. M.
Hakala (Eds.), Applying science of learning in educa-
tion: Infusing psychological science into the curriculum
(pp. 131–141). Society for the Teaching of Psy­chol­ogy.
Catholic Schools of the Diocese of Buffalo. (2012).
https://­www​.­wnycatholicschools​.­org/
Cazarez, G. (2020). Social-­emotional learning in an on-
line/blended environment. In J. P. Green (Ed.), Thriv-
ing as an online K-12 educator: Essential Practices from the
field (pp. 119–134). Routledge.
Chadha, A. (2019). Deepening engagement: The intimate
flow of online interactions. International Journal of On-
line Pedagogy and Course Design (IJOPCD), 9(3), 32–47.
Chan, J. C., Meissner, C. A., & Davis, S. D. (2018). Re-
trieval potentiates new learning: A theoretical and
meta-­analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 144(11),
1111–1146.
Chapman, S., Colvin, L. E., & Cosentino, S. (2020). Trans-
lational aspects of the multidisciplinary study of
metacognition. Translational Issues in Psychological Sci-
ence, 6(1), 26–31.
Charmatz, M. (2020). UC System may not use SAT/ACT
tests for admissions and scholarship decisions. Dis-
ability Compliance for Higher Education, 26(4), 1–3.
Cheng, L., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Antonenko, P. (2019). Ef-
fects of the flipped classroom instructional strategy
on students’ learning outcomes: A meta-­ analysis.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(4),
793–824.
Chong, W. H., Liem, G. A. D., Huan, V. S., Kit, P. L., &
Ang, R. P. (2018). Student perceptions of self-­
efficacy and teacher support for learning in foster-
ing youth competencies: Roles of affective and
cognitive engagement. Journal of Adolescence, 68,
1–11.
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2014). Learning and
teaching early math: The learning trajectories approach.
Routledge.
Clinton, J., & Hattie, J. (2014). Teachers as evaluators: An
empowerment evaluation approach. In D. M. Fetter-
man, S. J. Kaftarian, & A. Wandersman (Eds.), Em-
powerment evaluation: Knowledge and tools for
self-­assessment, evaluation capacity building, and account-
ability (pp. 86–111). Guilford Press.
Colman, A. (2008). Social contagion. In A Dictionary of Psy­
chol­ogy. Oxford University Press. https://­www​.­oxford​
reference​.­com​/­view​/­10​.­1093​/­acref​/­9780199534067​
.­001​.­0001​/­acref​-­9780199534067​-­e​-­7741
Common Core State Standards. (2020). En­glish Language
Arts-­ LITERACY.RL.1.4. Washington, DC. http://­
www​.­corestandards​.­org​/­ELA​-­Literacy​/­RL​/­1​/­4/
Condliffe, B. (2017). Project-­based learning: A lit­er­a­ture
review. Working Paper. MDRC.
Conradson, D. (2016). Fostering student m ­ ental well-­being
through supportive learning communities. ­Canadian
Geographer/Géographe canadien, 60(2), 239–244.
Coo­lidge, F. L., & Wynn, T. (2018). The rise of Homo sapi-
ens: The evolution of modern thinking. Oxford University
Press.
Cooper, E. A., Garlick, J., Featherstone, E., Voon, V.,
Singer, T., Critchley, H. D., & Harrison, N. A. (2014).
You turn me cold: Evidence for temperature conta-
gion. PloS One, 9(12), e116126.
Corballis, M. C. (2014). Left brain, right brain: Facts and
fantasies. PLoS Biol, 12(1), e1001767.
Corbin Frazier, L., & Eick, C. (2015). Approaches to criti-
cal reflection: Written and video journaling. Reflective
Practice, 16(5), 575–594.
Costa, A., & Kallick, B. (2005). Habits of mind. Hawker
Brownlow.
Costandi, M. (2016). Neuroplasticity. MIT Press.
Crabtree, M. L. (2017). The examination of a good teacher:
More than student test scores. (Doctoral dissertation,
Concordia University Chicago).
Crick, F. H. (1979). Thinking about the brain. Scientific
American, 241(3), 219–233.
Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2006). Social learning and so-
cial cognition: The case for pedagogy. Pro­cesses of
Change in Brain and Cognitive Development. Attention
and Per­for­mance XXI, 21, 249–274.
Curwin, R. (2014). It’s a m ­ istake not to use m ­ istakes as
part of the learning pro­cess. Edutopia. https://­www​
 References 93
.­edutopia​.­org​/­blog​/­use​-­mistakes​-­in​-­learning​-­process​
-­richard​-­curwin
Dabbagh, N., Marra, R. M., & Howland, J. L. (2018). Mean-
ingful online learning: Integrating strategies, activities, and
learning technologies for effective designs. Routledge.
Dabrowski, J., & Marshall, T. R. (2018). Motivation and
engagement in student assignments: The role of
choice and relevancy. Equity in motion. Education
Trust.
Damasio, A. (2000). The feeling of what happens: Body and
emotion in the making of consciousness. Vintage.
Damisch, L., Stoberock, B., & Mussweiler, T. (2010). Keep
your fin­gers crossed! How superstition improves per­
for­mance. Psychological Science, 21(7), 1014–1020.
Daniel, S. J. (2020). Education and the COVID-19 pan-
demic. Prospects, 1–6.
Danley, A. (2015). Require online exit tickets for active en-
gagement. Teaching Online Pedagogical Repository.
University of Central Florida Center for Distributed
Learning.
Darling-­Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the
American ­future.  Journal of Teacher Education,  61(1–
2), 35–47.
Darling-­Hammond, L., Burns, D., Campbell, C., Goodwin,
A. L., Hammerness, K., Low, E.-­L., . . . ​& Zeichner, K.
(2017). Empowered educators: How high-­performing sys-
tems shape teaching quality around the world. John Wiley
& Sons.
Darling-­Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-­Harvey, C., Barron,
B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for educational
practice of the science of learning and development.
Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97–140.
Darling-­Hammond, L., & Hyler, M. E. (2020). Preparing
educators for the time of COVID . . . ​and beyond. Eu­
ro­pean Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 457–465.
Davis, K. A., Zorwick, M. L. W., Roland, J., & Wade,
M. M. (Eds.). (2016). Using debate in the classroom: En-
couraging critical thinking, communication, and collabora-
tion. Routledge.
Deans for Impact. (2015). The science of learning. Author.
Dede, C. (2014). The role of digital technologies in deeper
learning. Students at the center: Deeper learning research
series. Jobs for the ­Future.
Dede, C. J., & Richards, J. (Eds.). (2020). The 60-­year cur-
riculum: New models for lifelong learning in the digital
economy. Routledge.
Dee, T., & Gershenson, S. (2017). Unconscious bias in the
classroom: Evidence and opportunities. Stanford Center
for Education Policy Analy­sis.
Dehaene, S. (2014). Consciousness and the brain: Decipher-
ing how the brain codes our thoughts. Penguin.
Delen, E., & Liew, J. (2016). The use of interactive envi-
ronments to promote self-­ regulation in online
learning: A lit­er­a­ture review. Eu­ro­pean Journal of Con­
temporary Education, 15(1), 24–33.
Delgado, A. J., Wardlow, L., McKnight, K., & O’Malley, K.
(2015). Educational technology: A review of the in-
tegration, resources, and effectiveness of technology
in K–12 classrooms. Journal of Information Technology
Education, 14, 397–416.
Deoni, S. C. (2018). Neuroimaging of the developing
brain and impact of nutrition. In J. Colombo, B.
Kletzko, & M. L. Lampl (Eds.), Recent research in nutri-
tion and growth: 89th Nestlé Nutrition Institute Workshop,
Dubai, March 2017.
Diamond, A. (2012). Activities and programs that im-
prove ­children’s executive functions. Current Direc-
tions in Psychological Science, 21(5), 335–341.
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review
of Psy­chol­ogy, 64, 135–168.
Diamond, A. (2014a). Want to optimize executive func-
tions and academic outcomes? ­Simple, just nourish
the ­human spirit. Minnesota Symposium in Child Psy­
chol­ogy, 37, 205–232.
Diamond, A. (2014b). Executive functions: Insights into
ways to help more c­hildren thrive. Zero to Three,
35(2), 9–17.
Diamond, A. (2014c). Understanding executive func-
tions. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 40(2),
7–11.
Diamond, A. (2016). Why improving and assessing ex-
ecutive functions early in life is critical. In J. A. Grif-
fin, P. McCardle, & L. S. Freund (Eds.), Executive
function in preschool-­age ­children: Integrating mea­sure­
ment, neurodevelopment, and translational research
(pp. 11–43). American Psychological Association.
Diamond, A., Lee, C., Senften, P., Lam, A., & Abbott, D.
(2019). Randomized control trial of Tools of the
Mind: Marked benefits to kindergarten ­children and
their teachers. PloS One, 14(9), e0222447.
Diamond, A., & Ling, D. S. (2016). Conclusions about in-
terventions, programs, and approaches for improv-
ing executive functions that appear justified and
­those that, despite much hype, do not. Developmental
Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 34–48.
Diamond, A., & Ling, D. S. (2019). Review of the evi-
dence on, and fundamental questions about, efforts
to improve executive functions, including working
memory. In J. M. Novick, M. F. Bunting, M. R.
Dougherty, & R. W. Engle (Eds.), Cognitive and Work-
ing Memory Training: Perspectives from Psy­chol­ogy, Neuro-
science, and ­Human Development (pp. 143–389). Oxford
University Press.
Dimaggio, G., Lysaker, P. H., Carcione, A., Nicolò, G., &
Semerari, A. (2008). Know yourself and you ­shall
know the other . . . ​ to a certain extent: Multiple
94 References
paths of influence of self-­ reflection on mindread-
ing.  Consciousness and Cognition,  17(3), 778–789.
https://­doi​.­org​/­10​.­1016​/­j​.­concog​.­2008​.­02​.­005
Ding, R., Ren, J., Li, S., Zhu, X., Zhang, K., & Luo, W.
(2020). Domain-­ general and domain-­ preferential
neural correlates under­lying empathy ­towards phys-
ical pain, emotional situation and emotional f­aces:
An ALE meta-­analysis. Neuropsychologia, 137, 107286.
DiPiro, J. T. (2010). Student learning: Perception versus
real­ity. American Journal of Phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal Education,
74(4), 63. https://­doi​.­org​/­10​.­5688​/­aj740463
D’Mello, A. M., & Rozenkrantz, L. (2020). Neural
mechanisms for prediction: From action to higher-­
order cognition. Journal of Neuroscience, 40(27),
5158–5160.
Dolcos, F., Katsumi, Y., Moore, M., Berggren, N., de
Gelder, B., Derakshan, N., . . . ​& Pegna, A. J. (2020).
Neural correlates of emotion-­attention interactions:
From perception, learning, and memory to social
cognition, individual differences, and training inter-
ventions. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 108,
559–601.
Dolcos, S., Sung, K., Denkova, E., Dixon, R. A., & Dolcos,
F. (2011). Brain imaging investigation of the neural
correlates of emotion regulation. Journal of Visualized
Experiments: JoVE, (54).
Domen, J., Hornstra, L., Weijers, D., van der Veen, I., &
Peetsma, T. (2020). Differentiated need support by
teachers: Student-­specific provision of autonomy and
structure and relations with student motivation. Brit-
ish Journal of Educational Psy­chol­ogy, 90(2), 403–423.
Dorn, E., Hancock, B., Sarakatsannis, J., & Viruleg, E.
(2020). COVID-19 and student learning in the United
States: The hurt could last a lifetime. McKinsey &
Com­pany.
Downey Unified School District. (2020). 2nd grade.
http://­www​.­dusd​.­net​/­cgi​/­2nd​-­grade/
Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindset: The new psy­chol­ogy of success.
Random House Digital.
Dweck, C. S., & Yeager, D. S. (2019). Mindsets: A view
from two eras. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(3),
481–496.
Dypedokk Johnsen, H. (2019). Socrates’ erotic educa-
tional methods. Journal of Philosophy of Education,
53(2), 309–322.
Easton, F. (1997). Educating the ­ whole child, “head,
heart, and hands”: Learning from the Waldorf expe-
rience. Theory into Practice, 36(2), 87–94.
Eccles, J. C. (1964). The trophic and plastic properties of
synapses. In The Physiology of Synapses (pp. 239–260).
Springer.
Edridge, C., Wolpert, M., Deighton, J., & Edbrooke-­
Childs, J. (2020). An mHealth Intervention (ReZone)
to help young p ­eople self-­ manage overwhelming
feelings: Cluster-­randomized controlled trial. Journal
of Medical Internet Research, 22(7), e14223.
Englert, P., Begin, N., Bucalos, A., Wallitsch, K., Ellis, G.,
& Strawser, M. G. (2019). Digging into difficult top-
ics: Cultivating community within the classroom.
Journal of Faculty Development, 33(2), 25–30.
Engzell, P., Frey, A., & Verhagen, M. D. (2020). Learning
in­equality during the COVID-19 pandemic. https://­
econpapers​.­repec​.­org​/­paper​/­osfsocarx​/­ve4z7​.­htm
Ericsson, A., & Pool, R. (2016). Peak: Secrets from the new
science of expertise. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Ertmer, P. A., Strobel, J., Cheng, X., Chen, X., Kim, H.,
Olesova, L., . . . ​& Tomory, A. (2010). Expressions of
critical thinking in role-­playing simulations: Com-
parisons across roles. Journal of Computing in Higher
Education, 22(2), 73–94.
Eury, R. G. (2020). In pursuit of deep learning . . . ​Not just a
hunt for grades. (Doctoral dissertation, Northeastern
University).
Everly, G. S., & Lating, J. M. (2019). The anatomy and
physiology of the ­human stress response. In A clinical
guide to the treatment of the ­ human stress response
(pp. 19–56). Springer.
Fabelico, F., & Afalla, B. (2020). Perseverance and pas-
sion in the teaching profession: Teachers’ grit, self-­
efficacy, burnout, and per­for­mance. Journal of Critical
Reviews. SSRN:  https://­ssrn​.­com​/­abstract​=­3655146
Fan, J., McCandliss, B. D., Fossella, J., Flombaum, J. I., &
Posner, M. I. (2005). The activation of attentional
networks. Neuroimage, 26(2), 471–479.
Farrington, C. A. (2013). Academic mindsets as a critical
component of deeper learning. University of Chi-
cago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
Fehr, E., & Gintis, H. (2007). H ­ uman motivation and so-
cial cooperation: Experimental and analytical foun-
dations. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 43–64.
Ferbinteanu, J. (2019). Memory systems 2018: T ­ owards a
new paradigm. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory,
157, 61–78.
Ferdig, R. E., Baumgartner, E., Hartshorne, R., Kaplan-­
Rakowski, R., & Mouza, C. (Eds.) (2020). Teaching,
technology, and teacher education during the COVID-19
pandemic: Stories from the field. Association for the Ad-
vancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Filene, P. (2009). The joy of teaching: A practical guide for
new college instructors. University of North Carolina
Press.
Filippi, P. (2020). Emotional voice intonation: A commu-
nication code at the origins of speech pro­cessing and
word-­meaning associations? Journal of Nonverbal Be-
havior, 44, 395–417. https://­doi.org/10.1007/s10919​
-020​-00337-­z
 References 95
Fine, C. (2010). Delusions of gender: How our minds, society, and
neurosexism create difference. W. W. Norton & Com­pany.
Firth, J., Rivers, I., & Boyle, J. (2019). A systematic re-
view of interleaving as a concept learning strategy.
Social Science Protocols, 2, 1–7.
Fischer, K. W. (2007). Why mind, brain, and education?
Why now? Mind, Brain, and Education, 1(1), 1–2.
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Hattie, J. (2016). Vis­i­ble learning for
literacy, grades K-12: Implementing the practices that work
best to accelerate student learning. Corwin Press.
Fisher, R., Perényi, Á., & Birdthistle, N. (2018). The posi-
tive relationship between flipped and blended learn-
ing and student engagement, per­ for­mance and
satisfaction. Active Learning in Higher Education,
1469787418801702.
Fletcher, D. (2009, December 11). Standardized testing.
Time Magazine. http://­content​.­time​.­com​/­time​/­nation​
/­article​/­0,8599,1947019,00​.­html
Fosslien, L., & Duffy, M. W. (2020, April 29). How to
combat zoom fatigue. Harvard Business Review.
Fox, K. C., & Christoff, K. (Eds.). (2018). The Oxford hand-
book of spontaneous thought: Mind-­wandering, creativity,
and dreaming. Oxford University Press.
Francis, B., Taylor, B., & Tereshchenko, A. (2019). Reas-
sessing “ability” grouping: Improving practice for equity
and attainment. Routledge.
Frenzel, A. C., Taxer, J. L., Schwab, C., & Kuhbandner, C.
(2019). In­de­pen­dent and joint effects of teacher en-
thusiasm and motivation on student motivation and
experiences: A field experiment. Motivation and Emo-
tion, 43(2), 255–265. https://​­doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s11031​
-018​-9738-7
Fuster, J. M. (1997). Network memory. Trends in Neurosci-
ences, 20(10), 451–459.
Gallup, A. C. (2020). On the link between emotional
contagion and contagious yawning. Neuroscience &
Biobehavioral Reviews, 121, 18–19.
Galton, F. (1869/1979). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into
its laws and consequences. Macmillan.
Ganapathy, M., Singh, M. K. M., Kaur, S., & Kit, L. W.
(2017). Promoting higher order thinking skills via
teaching practices. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Lit­er­a­ture,
23(1).
Garcia, E., & Weiss, E. (2019, March 26). The teacher
shortage is real, large and growing, and worse than we
thought. The first report in “The Perfect Storm in the
Teacher ­ Labor Market” series. Economic Policy
Institute.
Gardner, H. E. (2011). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple
intelligences. Hachette UK.
Garwood, J. D., Harris, A. H., & Tomick, J. K. (2017).
Starting at the beginning: An intuitive choice for
classroom management. Teacher Education and Practice,
30(1). https://­go​.­gale​.­com​/­ps​/­anonymous​?­id​=­GALE​
%​7CA​5528​50227&sid​=­googleScholar&v​=­2​.­1​&it​=­r​&​
link​access​=­abs​&​issn​=­08906459&p​=­AONE&sw​=­w
Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, re-
search, and practice. Teachers College Press.
Gazzaniga, M. (2012). Who’s in Charge? F ­ ree ­will and the
science of the brain. Hachette UK.
Gegenfurtner, A., & Ebner, C. (2019). Webinars in higher
education and professional training: A meta-­analysis
and systematic review of randomized controlled
­trials. Educational Research Review, 28, 100293.
Gehlbach, H., & Vriesema, C. C. (2019). Meta-­bias: A
practical theory of motivated thinking. Educational
Psy­chol­ogy Review, 31(1), 65–85.
Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Why heuristics work. Perspectives
on Psychological Science, 3(1), 20–29.
Goodman, M. S. (2019). Targeting self-­ regulation and
­disease resilience in elementary school students through
a mindfulness-­based social-­emotional learning curricu-
lum (Doctoral dissertation, Alliant International
University).
Goodway, J. D., Ozmun, J. C., & Gallahue, D. L. (2019).
Understanding motor development: Infants, c­ hildren, ado-
lescents, adults. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Goodyear, V. A., Armour, K. M., & Wood, H. (2019).
Young p ­ eople learning about health: The role of apps
and wearable devices. Learning, Media and Technology,
44(2), 193–210.
Gourgey, A. F. (2001). Metacognition in basic skills in-
struction. In Metacognition in learning and instruc-
tion (pp. 17–32). Springer.
Gray, J. A., & DiLoreto, M. (2016). The effects of student
engagement, student satisfaction, and perceived
learning in online learning environments. Interna-
tional Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 11(1).
Greene, J. D. (2016). Beyond point-­and-­shoot morality:
Why cognitive (neuro) science m ­ atters for ethics.
In S. M. Liao (Ed.), Moral brains: The neuroscience of
morality (pp. 119–149). Oxford University Press.
Grigsby-­Toussaint, D. S., Shin, J. C., Reeves, D. M., Beat-
tie, A., Auguste, E., & Jean-­Louis, G. (2017). Sleep
apps and behavioral constructs: A content analy­sis.
Preventive Medicine Reports, 6, 126–129.
Gross, Z. (2020). Changing habits of mind: A brain-­based
theory of psychotherapy. Routledge.
Grundy, J. G. (2020). The effects of bilingualism on ex-
ecutive functions: An updated quantitative analy­sis.
Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science, 4(9), 1–23.
Guerriero, S. (2014). Teachers’ pedagogical knowledge
and the teaching profession. Teaching and Teacher Edu-
cation, 2(1), 7.
Guerriero, S. (2017). Pedagogical knowledge and the chang-
ing nature of the teaching profession. OECD. http://­www​
96 References
.­iep​.­edu​.­gr​/­images​/­IEP​/­EPISTIMONIKI​_­YPIRESIA​
/­Epist​_­Grafeia​/­EU​_­Policy​/­2017​/­2017​-­05​-­11​_­OECD​
-­Pedagogical​-­Knowledge​.­pdf
Guskey, T. R., & Anderman, E. M. (2013). In search of a
useful definition of mastery. Educational Leadership,
71(4), 18–23.
Guskey, T. R., & Bailey, J. M. (2010). Developing standards-­
based report cards. Corwin Press.
Hall, E. T. (1989). Beyond culture. Anchor.
Hall, T. E., Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (Eds.). (2012). Univer-
sal design for learning in the classroom: Practical applica-
tions. Guilford Press.
Hammond, Z. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching and the
brain: Promoting au­then­tic engagement and rigor among
culturally and linguistically diverse students. Corwin Press.
Hamoda, H. M., Chiumento, A., & Alonge, O. (2020).
The Covid-19 lockdown ­will have consequences for
child m ­ ental health: Investing in school ­mental health
programs can help. Global ­Mental Health Reforms.
https://­ps​.­psychiatryonline​.­org​/­pb​-­assets​/­journals​/­ps​
/­h omepage​ /­T he%20Covid19%20Lockdown%20
Will%20Have%20Consequences%20for%20
Child%20Mental%20Health%20%20Investing%20
in%20School%20Mental%20Health%20Pro-
grams%20Can%20Help​.­pdf
Hargreaves, A. (2019). Teacher collaboration: 30 years of
research on its nature, forms, limitations and effects.
Teachers and Teaching, 25(5), 603–621.
Hasan, M., Kanna, M. S., Jun, W., Ramkrishnan, A. S.,
Iqbal, Z., Lee, Y., & Li, Y. (2019). Schema-­like learn-
ing and memory consolidation acting through my-
elination. FASEB Journal, 33(11), 11758–11775.
Hatfield, E., Carpenter, M., & Rapson, R. L. (2014). Emo-
tional contagion as a precursor to collective emo-
tions. In C. von Scheve & M. Salmela (Eds.), Collective
emotions: Perspectives from psy­chol­ogy, philosophy, and so-
ciology (pp.108–122). Oxford University Press.
Hattie, J. (2012). Vis­i­ble learning for teachers: Maximizing
impact on learning. Routledge.
Hattie, J., & Zierer, K. (2019). Vis­i­ble learning insights.
Routledge.
Henriksen, D. (2016). The seven transdisciplinary habits
of mind of creative teachers: An exploratory study of
award winning teachers. Thinking Skills and Creativity,
22, 212–232.
Herold, C. F. (2005). Using case studies to teach science.
Education: Classroom methodology. American Institute
of Biological Sciences.
Herold, F., Hamacher, D., Schega, L., & Müller, N. G.
(2018). Thinking while moving or moving while
thinking: Concepts of motor-­ cognitive training for
cognitive per­for­mance enhancement. Frontiers in Ag-
ing Neuroscience, 10, 228.
Herreid, C. F. (2005). Using case studies to teach science.
Education: Classroom methodology. American Insti-
tute of Biological Sciences.
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A.
(2020, March 27). The difference between emer-
gency remote teaching and online learning. EDU-
CAUSE Review, 3. https://­er​.­educause​.­edu​/­articles​
/­2020​/­3​/­the​-­difference​-­between​-­emergency​-­remote​
-­teaching​-­and​-­online​-­learning
Holle, H., Warne, K., Seth, A. K., Critchley, H. D., & Ward,
J. (2012). Neural basis of contagious itch and why
some ­people are more prone to it. Proceedings of the
National Acad­emy of Sciences, 109(48), 19816–19821.
Honary, M., Bell, B. T., Clinch, S., Wild, S. E., & McNaney,
R. (2019). Understanding the role of healthy eating
and fitness mobile apps in the formation of maladap-
tive eating and exercise be­hav­iors in young ­people.
JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 7(6), e14239.
Hudson, M., Seppälä, K., Putkinen, V., Sun, L., Glerean,
E., Karjalainen, T., . . . ​ & Nummenmaa, L. (2020).
Dissociable neural systems for unconditioned acute
and sustained fear. NeuroImage, 216, 116522.
Huebner, P. J. (2004). Teaching research skills at the K-12
level. AGUFM, 2004, ED43C-08. https://­ui​.­adsabs​
.­harvard​.­edu​/­abs​/­2004AGUFMED43C​.­​.­08H​/­abstract
Hughes, C. A., & Lee, J.-­Y. (2019). Effective approaches
for scheduling and formatting practice: distributed,
cumulative, and interleaved practice. Teaching Excep-
tional ­Children,  51(6), 411-423. https://­doi​.org​/10​
.1177​/0040059919847194
Humiston, J. P., Marshall, S. M., Hacker, N. L., & Cantu,
L. M. (2020). Intentionally creating an inclusive and
welcoming climate in the online learning classroom.
In L. Kyei-­Blankson, E. Ntuli, & J. Blankson (Eds.),
Handbook of research on creating meaningful experiences
in online courses (pp. 173–186). IGI Global.
Hutchinson, J. B., & Barrett, L. (2019). The power of pre-
dictions: An emerging paradigm for psychological re-
search. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(3),
280–291.
Ifenthaler, D., Mah, D.-­K., & Yau, J. Y.-­K. (Eds.). (2019).
Utilizing learning analytics to support study success.
Springer.
Immordino-­Yang, M. H. (2015). Emotions, learning, and
the brain: Exploring the educational implications of affec-
tive neuroscience. W. W. Norton & Com­pany.
Immordino-­Yang, M. H., & Damasio, A. (2007). We feel,
therefore we learn: The relevance of affective and so-
cial neuroscience to education. Mind, Brain, and Edu-
cation, 1(1), 3–10.
Immordino-­Yang, M. H., Darling-­Hammond, L., & Krone,
C. R. (2019). Nurturing nature: How brain develop-
ment is inherently social and emotional, and what
 References 97
this means for education. Educational Psychologist,
54(3), 185–204.
Ingvarson, L., & Rowley, G. (2017). Quality assurance in
teacher education and outcomes: A study of 17 coun-
tries. Educational Researcher, 46(4), 177–193.
Israelashvili, J., Oosterwijk, S., Sauter, D., & Fischer, A.
(2019). Knowing me, knowing you: Emotion differ-
entiation in oneself is associated with recognition of
­others’ emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 33(7),
1461–1471.
Jackson, A. P., Preston, K. S. J., & Thomas, C. A. (2013).
Single ­mothers, nonresident f­athers, and preschool-
ers’ socioemotional development: Social support,
psychological well-­ being, and parenting quality.
Journal of Social Ser­vice Research, 39(1), 129–140.
Jimenez, M. E., Wade, R., Lin, Y., Morrow, L. M., & Reich-
man, N. E. (2016). Adverse experiences in early
childhood and kindergarten outcomes. Pediatrics,
137(2), e20151839.
Johnson, A. P. (2019). Essential learning theories: Applica-
tions to au­ then­ tic teaching situations. Rowman &
Littlefield.
Johnson, D. (2020, June 24). Upskilling and reskilling for
the “new normal” of education. Education Ele­ments.
https://­www​.­edelements​.­com​/­blog​/­upskilling​-­and​
-­reskilling​-­for​-­the​-­new​-­normal​-­of​-­education
Johnson, S. K. (2009). Do you feel what I feel? Mood
contagion and leadership outcomes. Leadership Quar-
terly, 20(5), 814–827.
Joinson, A. (1998). C ­ auses and implications of disinhib-
ited be­ hav­ ior on the Internet. In J. Gackenbach,
(Ed.), Psy­chol­ogy and the Internet: Intrapersonal, inter-
personal, and transpersonal implications (pp. 43–60).
Academic Press.
Jones, R. W. (2007). Learning and teaching in small groups:
Characteristics, benefits, prob­ lems and approaches.
Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, 35(4), 587–592.
Jones, T., & Brown, C. (2011). Reading engagement: A
comparison between e-­books and traditional print
books in an elementary classroom. International Jour-
nal of Instruction, 4(2), 5–22.
Kaffenberger, M. (2020). Modeling the long-­run learning
impact of the COVID-19 learning shock: Actions to
(more than) mitigate loss. RISE Insight Series, 17.
Kalil, A., & Ryan, R. (2020). Parenting practices and so-
cioeconomic gaps in childhood outcomes. ­Future of
­Children, 30(1), 29–54.
Kandel, E. R. (2007). In search of memory: The emergence of
a new science of mind. W. W. Norton & Com­pany.
Kang, S. H. K. (2016). The benefits of interleaved practice
for learning. In J. C. Horvath, J. M. Lodge, & J. Hattie
(Eds.), From the laboratory to the classroom: Translating
science of learning for teachers (pp. 91–105). Routledge.
Kaplan-­Rakowski, R. (2020). Addressing students’ emo-
tional needs during the COVID-19 pandemic: A per-
spective on text versus video feedback in online
environments. Educational Technology Research and De-
velopment, 1–4.
Karnieli, M. (2009). Teacher education: Science or art?
Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education
(INUJFE), 10(3).
Kauchak, D., & Eggen, P. D. (1998). Learning and teaching:
Research-­based methods (3rd ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
Keeley, B. L. (2002). Making sense of the senses: Indi-
viduating modalities in h ­ umans and other animals.
Journal of Philosophy, 99(1), 5–28.
Kendeou, P., Braasch, J. L. G., & Bråten, I. (2016). Opti-
mizing conditions for learning: Situating refutations
in epistemic cognition. Journal of Experimental Educa-
tion, 84(2), 245–263.
Khan, S. (2012). The one world school­house: Education re­
imagined. Twelve.
Kim, B., Zyromski, B., Mariani, M., Lee, S. M., & Carey,
J. C. (2017). Establishing the ­factor structure of the
18-­item version of the Ju­nior Metacognitive Aware-
ness Inventory. Mea­sure­ment and Evaluation in Coun-
seling and Development, 50(1–2), 48–57.
Kim, M. K., Lee, I. H., & Wang, Y. (2020, March 2). How
students emerge as learning leaders in small group on-
line discussions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning.
King, E. (2018). Online educational outcomes could ex-
ceed ­ those of the traditional classroom. Emerging
Learning Design Journal, 5(2), 1.
Kirst, M., & Venezia, A. (2001). Bridging the g­ reat divide
between secondary schools and postsecondary edu-
cation.  Phi Delta Kappan,  83(1), 92–97. https://­doi.
org/10.1177/003172170108300118
Kitayama, S., & Park, J. (2010). Cultural neuroscience of
the self: Understanding the social grounding of the
brain. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 5(2–3),
111–129.
Kitayama, S., & Uskul, A. K. (2011). Culture, mind, and
the brain: Current evidence and f­uture directions.
Annual Review of Psy­chol­ogy, 62, 419–449.
Kleitman, S., & Narciss, S. (2019). Introduction to the
special issue “Applied metacognition: Real-­world ap-
plications beyond learning.” Metacognition and Learn-
ing, 14(3), 335–342.
Kogtikov, N., Dukhanov, A., & Bochenina, K. (2016).
Modeling knowledge transfer and the transdisci-
plinary effect on project-­ based learning activities.
Procedia Computer Science, 80, 1989–1999.
Korbach, A., Brünken, R., & Park, B. (2018). Differentiat-
ing dif­fer­ent types of cognitive load: A comparison of
dif­fer­ent mea­sures. Educational Psy­chol­ogy Review,
30(2), 503–529.
98 References
Kovanović, V., Gašević, D., Dawson, S., Joksimović, S.,
Baker, R. S., & Hatala, M. (2015, March). Penetrating
the black box of time-­on-­task estimation. In Proceed-
ings of the Fifth International Conference on Learning An-
alytics and Knowledge (pp. 184–193).
Kowalski, P. (2018, July 30). Myth: Brain training w ­ ill make
you smarter. Association for Psychological Science.
https://­w ww​.­p sychologicalscience​.­o rg​/­t eaching​
/­myth​-­brain​-­training​-­will​-­make​-­you​-­smarter​.­html
Kress, J. S., & Elias, M. J. (2019). Nurturing students’ char-
acter: Everyday teaching activities for social-­ emotional
learning. Routledge.
Kübler-­Ross, E., & Kessler, D. (2005). On grief and grieving:
Finding the meaning of grief through the five stages of loss.
Simon and Schuster.
Kübler-­Ross, E., Kessler, D., & Kucharski, A. (2020). The
rules of contagion: Why ­things spread—­And why they stop.
Basic Books.
Kuhl, B. A., & Chun, M. M. (2014). Memory and atten-
tion. In A. C. Nobre & S. Kastner (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of attention (pp. 806–836). Oxford Univer-
sity Press. https://­doi​.org​/10​.1093​/oxford​hb​/978019​
9675111.013.034
Layton, L. (2015, October 24). Study says standardized
testing is overwhelming nation’s public schools.
Washington Post. https://­ www​.­washingtonpost​.­com/
local/education/study-­says-­standardized-­testing-­is-­
overwhelming-­nations-­public-­ schools​/­2015​/­10​/­24​
/­8 a22092c​ -­7 9ae​ -­1 1e5​ -­a 958​ -­d 889faf561dc​ _­s tory​
.­html​?­utm​_­term​=­​.­ab11702bcd54
Leppink, J. (2017). Cognitive load theory: Practical impli-
cations and an impor­tant challenge. Journal of Taibah
University Medical Sciences, 12(5), 385–391.
Lombardi, M. M. (2007). Au­ then­ tic learning for the
21st ­century: An overview. Educause Learning Initia-
tive, 1, 1–12.
Long, T., Logan, J., & Waugh, M. (2016). Students’ per-
ceptions of the value of using videos as a pre-­class
learning experience in the flipped classroom. Tech-
Trends, 60(3), 245–252.
Lorentz, J. (2020). Mindfulness & cognitive pro­cessing. Exam-
ining the link between a brief mindfulness intervention and
cognitive reflection (Doctoral dissertation, Universi-
dades Nova). http://­hdl​.­handle​.­net​/­10362​/­104144
Luo, T., Hostetler, K., Freeman, C., & Stefaniak, J. (2020).
The power of open: Benefits, barriers, and strategies
for integration of open educational resources. Open
Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-­Learning,
35(2), 140–158.
Lyons, D. (2018). Why making m ­ istakes is the best way
to learn a language. Babbel. https://­www​.babbel​.com​
/en ​ / magazine​ / why​ - m­ aking​ - ­m istakes​ - b
­ est ​ - ­w ay​
-­learn​-­language
Maheu, M., Dehaene, S., & Meyniel, F. (2019). Brain sig-
natures of a multiscale pro­cess of sequence learning
in ­humans. Elife, 8, e41541.
Manyozo, L. (2016). The pedagogy of listening. Develop-
ment in Practice, 26(7), 954–959.
Maquet, P. (2001). The role of sleep in learning and
memory. Science, 294(5544), 1048–1052.
Marhamah, M., & Mulyadi, M. (2013). Jigsaw coopera-
tive learning: A v ­iable teaching-­ learning strategy?
Journal of Educational and Social Research, 3(7), 710.
Markets and Markets. (2020). EdTech and Smart class-
rooms. https://­www.marketsandmarkets.com/Press-
Releases/educational-­technology-­ed-­tech.asp
Marsh, H. W., Pekrun, R., Murayama, K., Arens, A. K.,
Parker, P. D., Guo, J., & Dicke, T. (2018). An inte-
grated model of academic self-­concept development:
Academic self-­concept, grades, test scores, and track-
ing over 6 years. Developmental Psy­chol­ogy, 54(2),
263–280.
Martin, A. (2010). Building classroom success: Eliminating
academic fear and failure. A&C Black.
Martin, F., & Polly, D., & Ritzhaupt, A. (2020, September 8).
Bichronous online learning: Blending a­ synchronous and
synchronous online learning. ­Wikicommons. https://­er​
.educause​.edu​/articles​/2020​/9​/bichronous​-­online​
-­learning-­blending​-­asyn​chro​nous​-­and​-­synchronous​
-­online​-­learning
Martin, J. E. (2019). Reinventing crediting for competency-­
based education: The Mastery Transcript Consortium model
and beyond. Routledge.
Martin, P., & Martin, V. (2012). Learning and the senses.
The Routledge International Handbook of Learning, 7.
Marzano, R. J., (2003). What works in schools: Translating
research into action. ASCD.
Mather, M., & Sutherland, M. R. (2011). Arousal-­biased
competition in perception and memory. Perspectives
on Psychological Science, 6(2), 114–133.
Mayer, R. E. (2019). Thirty years of research on online
learning. Applied Cognitive Psy­chol­ogy, 33(2), 152–159.
McLaughlin, B. (1990). “Conscious” versus “uncon-
scious” learning. TESOL Quarterly, 24(4), 617–634.
McNamara, S., & Moreton, G. (2016). Understanding dif-
ferentiation: A teacher’s guide. Routledge.
McTighe, J., & Silver, H. F. (2020). Teaching for deeper
learning: Tools to engage students in meaning making.
ASCD.
McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. (2012). Understanding by Design
framework. Association for Supervision and Curricu-
lum Development.
Mehrabi, M., Safarpour, A. R., & Keshtkar, A. A. (2020).
Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) dropout rate
in the world: A systematic review protocol. Research
Square. http://­doi​.­org​/­10​.­21203​/­rs​.­3​.­rs​-­99449​/­v1
 References 99
Merzenich, M. M., Lee, H. K., Luk, C. H., Nahum, M.,
Ramanathan, J. M., Van Vleet, T. M., . . . ​& Pollica, L.
(2016). Neuroplasticity games. U.S. Patent No. 9,308,445.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Metcalfe, J. (2017). Learning from errors. Annual Review
of Psy­chol­ogy, 68, 465–489.
Milgram, S., Bickman, L., & Berkowitz, L. (1969). Note on
the drawing power of crowds of dif­fer­ent size. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psy­chol­ogy, 13(2), 79–82.
http://­doi​.­org​/­10​.­1037​/­h0028070
Miller, E. K. (2017). Multitasking: Why your brain c­ an’t do it
and what you should do about it. The Picower Institute
for Learning and Memory and Department of Brain
and Cognitive Sciences, Mas­ sa­chu­setts Institute of
Technology. http://­radius​.­mit​.­edu​/­sites​/­default​/­files​
/­images​/­Miller%20Multitasking%202017​.­pdf
Miller, M. D. (2014). Minds online. Harvard University Press.
Miller, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psy­ ogy, 67(4), 371–378.
chol­
https://­doi.org/10.1037/h0040525
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological peda-
gogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher
knowledge.  Teachers College Rec­ ord,  108(6), 1017–
1054. https://­www.learntechlib.org/p/99246/
Mitra, S. (2015). From hole in the wall to school in the
cloud. In P. Dixon, S. H ­ umble, & C. Counihan (Eds.),
Handbook of international development and education
(pp. 368–378). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Mitra, S., & Crawley, E. (2014). Effectiveness of self-­
organised learning by ­ children: Gateshead experi-
ments. Journal of Education and ­Human Development,
3(3), 79–88.
Moffitt, T. E. (2012). Childhood self-­control predicts adult
health, wealth, and crime. In Multi-­Disciplinary Sym-
posium for the Improvement and Well-­Being of ­Children
Youth.
Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N.,
Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H., . . . ​ & Sears, M. R.
(2011). A gradient of childhood self-­control predicts
health, wealth, and public safety. Proceedings of the
National Acad­emy of Sciences, 108(7), 2693–2698.
Moser, A., Carlander, M., Wieser, S., Hämmig, O., Puhan,
M. A., & Höglinger, M. (2020). The COVID-19 Social
Monitor longitudinal online panel: Real-­time moni-
toring of social and public health consequences of
the COVID-19 emergency in Switzerland. PloS One,
15(11), e0242129.
Mutlu-­Bayraktar, D., Cosgun, V., & Altan, T. (2019). Cog-
nitive load in multimedia learning environments: A
systematic review. Computers & Education, 141, 103618.
Naparin, H., & Saad, A. B. (2017). Infographics in educa-
tion: Review on infographics design. International
Journal of Multimedia & Its Applications (IJMA), 9(4), 5.
Nash, P., & Schlösser, A. (2015). Working with schools in
identifying and overcoming emotional barriers to
learning. Educational Studies, 41(1–2), 143–155.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medi-
cine. (2018). How ­people learn II: Learners, contexts, and
cultures. National Academies Press.
Ng, B. (2018). The neuroscience of growth mindset and
intrinsic motivation. Brain Sciences, 8(2), 20.
Nielsen, G., Mygind, E., Bølling, M., Otte, C. R., Schneller,
M. B., Schipperijn, J., . . . ​& Bentsen, P. (2016). A
quasi-­ experimental cross-­ disciplinary evaluation of
the impacts of education outside the classroom on
pupils’ physical activity, well-­being and learning: The
TEACHOUT study protocol. BMC Public Health, 16(1),
1–15.
Nilsson, P. (2008). Teaching for understanding: The com-
plex nature of pedagogical content knowledge in
pre-­service education. International Journal of Science
Education, 30(10), 1281–1299.
Noddings, N. (2005). What does it mean to educate the
­whole child? Educational Leadership, 63(1), 8–13.
Nordrum, L., Evans, K., & Gustafsson, M. (2013). Com-
paring student learning experiences of in-­text com-
mentary and rubric-­articulated feedback: Strategies
for formative assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 38(8), 919–940.
NYC C ­ hildren. (2020). COVID-19 General information.
https://­www1.nyc.gov/site/acs/about/covid19.page
O’Byrne, S., & Texier, P. (2020, May 11). Pandemic lessons:
Reliable internet is no longer a luxury—­ it’s a right.
Stantec.
OECD. (2021). What can schools do to develop positive,
high-­achieving students? Insights from PISA and TALIS.
[Webinar] https://­oecdedutoday​.com​/oecd​-­education​
-­webinars/
Ormrod, J. E. (2017). How we think and learn: Theoretical
perspectives and practical implications. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Orón Semper, J. V., Akrivou, K., & Scalzo, G. (2019, De-
cember 16). Educational implications that arise from
differing models of ­human development and their
repercussions for social innovation. Frontiers in Edu-
cation, 4, 139.
Orón Semper, J. V., Murillo, J. I., & Bernacer, J. (2016).
Adolescent emotional maturation through divergent
models of brain organ­ization. Frontiers in Psy­chol­ogy,
7, 1263.
Outhwaite, L. A., Faulder, M., Gulliford, A., & Pitchford,
N. J. (2019). Raising early achievement in math with
interactive apps: A randomized control trial. Journal
of Educational Psy­chol­ogy, 111(2), 284–298.
Palmer, P. J. (2017). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner
landscape of a teacher’s life. John Wiley & Sons.
100 References
Pan, S. C. (2015). The interleaving effect: Mixing it up
boosts learning. Scientific American, 313(2).
Pan, X., & Shao, H. (2020). Teacher online feedback and
learning motivation: Learning engagement as a me-
diator. Social Be­hav­ior and Personality: An International
Journal, 48(6), 1–10.
Paniagua, F. G. (2019, July). Quality assurance in online
education: A development pro­cess to design high-­
quality courses. In International Conference on Human-­
Computer Interaction (pp. 182–194). Springer.
Panksepp, J., Lane, R. D., Solms, M., & Smith, R. (2017).
Reconciling cognitive and affective neuroscience
perspectives on the brain basis of emotional expe­
rience. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 76,
187–215.
Parisi, G. I., Kemker, R., Part, J. L., Kanan, C., & Wermter,
S. (2019). Continual lifelong learning with neural
networks: A review. Neural Networks, 113, 54–71.
Parkinson, B. (2020). Intragroup emotion convergence:
Beyond contagion and social appraisal. Personality
and Social Psy­chol­ogy Review, 24(2), 121–140.
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008).
Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological
Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119.
Pedretti, G., Milo, V., Ambrogio, S., Carboni, R., Bianchi,
S., Calderoni, A., . . . ​& Ielmini, D. (2017). Memris-
tive neural network for on-­line learning and tracking
with brain-­inspired spike timing dependent plastic-
ity. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 1–10.
Peetz, J., Milyavskaya, M., Davydenko, M., & Donnellan,
M. B. (2020). When time on task is seen as a reward:
Autonomous motivation increases preference for
pursuing goals more often for less time. Collabra: Psy­
chol­ogy, 6(1), 13.
Pennequin, V., Questel, F., Delaville, E., Delugre, M., &
Maintenant, C. (2020). Metacognition and emo-
tional regulation in c­ hildren from 8 to 12 years old.
British Journal of Educational Psy­chol­ogy, 90, 1–16.
Perkins, D. (2009) Making education ­ whole: How seven
princi­ples of teaching can transform education. Jossey-­
Bass.
Perrone-­Bertolotti, M., Rapin, L., Lachaux, J. P., Baciu,
M., & Loevenbruck, H. (2014). What is that l­ittle
voice inside my head? Inner speech phenomenology,
its role in cognitive per­for­mance, and its relation to
self-­monitoring. Behavioural Brain Research, 261,
220–239.
Perry, A., & Karpova, E. (2017). Efficacy of teaching cre-
ative thinking skills: A comparison of multiple cre-
ativity assessments. Thinking Skills and Creativity,  24,
118–126. https://­doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.02.017
Peters, M. A., & Besley, T. (2020). Pandemic education and
viral politics. Routledge.
Phirangee, K., & Malec, A. (2017). Othering in online
learning: An examination of social presence, identity,
and sense of community. Distance Education, 38(2),
160–172.
Piaget, J. (2003). Part I: Cognitive development in
­children—­Piaget development and learning. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 40, S8–­S18.
Piaget, J., & Papert, S. (1967). Constructivist learning
theory. Logique et Connaissance scientifique, Encyclo-
pédie de la Pléiade.
Pinilla, A., Tamayo, R. M., & Neira, J. (2020). How do
induced affective states bias emotional contagion to
­faces? A three-­dimensional model. Frontiers in Psy­
chol­ogy, 11, 97.
Pinker, S. (2003). How the mind works. Penguin UK.
Piña, A. A. (2018). AECT instructional design stan-
dards for distance learning. TechTrends,  62(3),
305–307.
Piray, P., Ly, V., Roelofs, K., Cools, R., & Toni, I. (2019).
Emotionally aversive cues suppress neural systems
under­lying optimal learning in socially anxious indi-
viduals. Journal of Neuroscience, 39(8), 1445–1456.
Popham, W. J. (1999). Why standardized tests d ­ on’t mea-
sure educational quality. Educational Leadership, 56,
8–16.
Posner, M. I., & Shulman, G. L. (2019). Cognitive science.
In E. Hearst (Ed.), The first ­century of experimental psy­
chol­ogy (pp. 371–406). Routledge.
Post, P. B., Grybush, A. L., Elmadani, A., & Lockhart,
C. E. (2020). Fostering resilience in classrooms
through child-­teacher relationship training. Interna-
tional Journal of Play Therapy, 29(1), 9.
Powell, A., Watson, J., Staley, P., Patrick, S., Horn, M.,
Fetzer, L., . . . ​& Verma, S. (2015). Blending learning:
The evolution of online and face-­to-­face education from
2008–2015. Promising practices in blended and online
learning series. International Association for K-12 On-
line Learning.
Price, M., & O’Donovan, B. (2006). Improving per­for­
mance through enhancing student understanding of
criteria and feedback. Innovative Assessment in Higher
Education, 100–109.
Pulham, E., & Graham, C. R. (2018). Comparing K-12
online and blended teaching competencies: A lit­er­a­
ture review. Distance Education, 39(3), 411–432.
Purnell, J. Q., Lobb Dougherty, N., Kryzer, E. K., Bajra-
charya, S., Chaitan, V. L., Combs, T., . . . ​& Pearson,
C. J. (2020). Research to translation: The healthy
schools toolkit and new approaches to the w ­ hole
school, w ­ hole community, w ­ hole child model. Jour-
nal of School Health, 90(12), 948–963.
Qehaja-­Osmani, F. (2013). Executive functions and life
success. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 46(8), 247–249.
 References 101
Radford, B. (1999). The ten-­percent myth. Skeptical In-
quirer, 23(2), 52–53.
Rayner, S. G. (2001). Aspects of the self as learner: Per-
ception, concept, and esteem. Self-­Perception, 25–52.
Rettie, H., & Daniels, J. (2020). Coping and tolerance of
uncertainty: Predictors and mediators of ­ mental
health during the COVID-19 pandemic. American Psy-
chologist. https://­doi.org/10.1037/amp0000710
Richland, L. E., Bjork, R. A., Finley, J. R., & Linn, M. C.
(2005). Linking cognitive science to education: Gen-
eration and interleaving effects. In Proceedings of the
Twenty-­Seventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science
Society, 27, 1850–1855.
Ritchhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K. (2011). Making
thinking vis­ib­ le: How to promote engagement, understand-
ing, and in­de­pen­dence for all learners. John Wiley & Sons.
Roche, S. (2017). Learning for life, for work, and for its own
sake: The value (and values) of lifelong learning. Springer.
Roditi, B., Sayer, J., & Theokas, C. (2004). Positive and
negative self-­perceptions: Is t­ here a cyclical relation-
ship between teachers’ and students’ perceptions of
effort, strategy use, and academic per­ for­
mance?
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19(1), 33–44.
Rodriguez, V. (2012). The teaching brain and the end of the
empty vessel. Mind, Brain, and Education, 6(4), 177–185.
Rogowsky, B. A., Calhoun, B. M., & Tallal, P. (2020). Pro-
viding instruction based on students’ learning style
preferences does not improve learning. Frontiers in
Psy­chol­ogy, 11, 164.
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching ­every student in
the digital age: Universal design for learning. Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Rose, T. (2016). The end of average: How to succeed in a
world that values sameness. Penguin UK.
Rosen, C. (2008). The myth of multitasking. The New At-
lantis, (20), 105–110.
Rosenthal, R. (2002). The Pygmalion effect and its medi-
ating mechanisms. In J. Aronson (Ed.), Improving aca-
demic achievement: Impact of psychological f­actors on
education (pp. 25–36). Academic Press.
Rosenthal, R. (2010). Pygmalion effect. The Corsini ency-
clopedia of psy­chol­ogy, 1–2.
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the
classroom. Pygmalion in the classroom. The Urban
Review, 3(1), 16–20.
Ross, M. E. (2010). Designing and using program evalua-
tion as a tool for reform. Journal of Research on Leader-
ship Education, 5(12), 481–500.
Ross, P., & Atkinson, A. P. (2020). Expanding simulation
models of emotional understanding: The case for dif­
fer­ent modalities, body-­state simulation prominence,
and developmental trajectories. Frontiers in Psy­chol­
ogy, 11, 309.
Rothman, R. (2018). Mea­sur­ing deeper learning: New di-
rections in formative assessment. Students at the Cen-
ter: Deeper Learning Research Series. Jobs for the ­Future.
Rothstein, D., & Santana, L. (2011). Make just one change:
Teach students to ask their own questions. Harvard Edu-
cation Press.
Rubie-­Davies, C. M. (2006). Teacher expectations and
student self-­ perceptions: Exploring relationships.
Psy­chol­ogy in the Schools, 43(5), 537–552.
Rubie-­Davies, C. M., Hattie, J., & Hamilton, R. (2006).
Expecting the best for students: Teacher expectations
and academic outcomes. British Journal of Educational
Psy­chol­ogy, 76(3), 429–444.
Rury, J. L. (2012). Education and social change: Contours in
the history of American schooling. Penguin.
Samoggia, A., & Riedel, B. (2020). Assessment of
nutrition-­focused mobile apps’ influence on consum-
ers’ healthy food behaviour and nutrition knowledge.
Food Research International, 128, 108766.
Sapolsky, R. M. (2017). Behave: The biology of ­humans at
our best and worst. Penguin.
Sauce, B., & Matzel, L. D. (2013). The ­causes of variation
in learning and be­hav­ior: Why individual differences
­matter. Frontiers in Psy­chol­ogy, 4, 395.
Schilbach, L., Eickhoff, S. B., Mojzisch, A., & Vogeley, K.
(2008). What’s in a smile? Neural correlates of facial
embodiment during social interaction. Social Neurosci-
ence, 3(1), 37–50.
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Metacognitive
Awareness Inventory. PsycTESTS Dataset.
Schraw, G., & Gutierrez, A. P. (2015). Metacognitive
strategy instruction that highlights the role of moni-
toring and control pro­cesses. In S. Peňa-­Ayala (Ed.),
Metacognition: Fundaments, applications, and trends
(pp. 3–16). Springer.
Schwartz, H. L., Ahmed, F., Leschitz, J. T., Uzicanin, A., &
Uscher-­Pines, L. (2020). Opportunities and challenges in
using online learning to maintain continuity of instruction
in k–12 schools in emergencies. Rand Corporation.
Schwartz, H. L., Ahmed, F., Leschitz, J. T., Uzicanin, A.,
Uscher-­Pines, L., & Savery, J. R. (2015). Overview of
problem-­ based learning: Definitions and distinc-
tions. Essential readings in problem-­based learning: Ex-
ploring and extending the legacy of Howard S. Barrows,
9, 5–15.
Schwartz, K. (2016). I wish my teacher knew: How one ques-
tion can change every­thing for our kids. Da Capo Lifelong
Books.
Schwartz, M. S., & Paré-­Blagoev, E. J. (Eds.). (2017). Re-
search in Mind, Brain, and Education. Routledge.
Scoular, C., Eleftheriadou, S., Ramalingam, D., & Cloney,
D. (2020). Comparative analy­sis of student per­for­
mance in collaborative prob­lem solving: What does
102 References
it tell us? Australian Journal of Education, 64(3),
282–303.
Scriven, M. (1994). Duties of the teacher. Journal of Per-
sonnel Evaluation in Education, 8(2), 151–184.
Seymour, K., Skattebol, J., & Pook, B. (2020). Compound-
ing education disengagement: COVID-19 lockdown,
the digital divide and wrap-­around ser­vices. Journal
of ­Children’s Ser­vices, 15(4), 243–251.
Shanthamallu, U., Li, Q., Thiagarajan, J. J., Anirudh, R.,
& Bremer, P. T. (2019). Modeling h ­ uman brain connec-
tomes using structured neural networks (No. LLNL-­
CONF-796920). Lawrence Livermore National Lab.
(LLNL).
Shenhav, A., Musslick, S., Lieder, F., Kool, W., Griffiths,
T. L., Cohen, J. D., & Botvinick, M. M. (2017). ­Toward
a rational and mechanistic account of ­ mental ef-
fort. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 40, 99–124.
Shing, Y. L., & Brod, G. (2016). Effects of prior knowledge
on memory: Implications for education. Mind, Brain,
and Education, 10(3), 153–161.
Shouman, D., & Momdjian, L. (2019, April). Deeper
learning versus surface learning: The SAMR model to
assess e-­learning pedagogy. In International Conference
on Digital Economy (pp. 230–238). Springer.
Shpeizer, R., & Glassner, A. (2020). ­Free ­will and heuta-
gogy. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Jour-
nal, 8, SF80–­SF86.
Sies, H. (Ed.). (2019). Oxidative stress: Eustress and distress.
Academic Press.
Siregar, Y. E. Y., Zulela, M. S., Prayuningtyas, A. W.,
Rachmadtullah, R., & Pohan, N. (2018, November).
Self regulation, emotional intelligence with character
building in elementary school. In Proceedings of the
Annual Civic Education Conference (ACEC 2018). Atlantis
Press.
Sirois, S., Spratling, M., Thomas, M. S. C., Westermann,
G., Mareschal, D., & Johnson, M. H. (2008). Précis of
neuroconstructivism: How the brain constructs cog-
nition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31(3), 321–331.
Smith, B., & Brame, C. (2017). Blended and online learning.
Center for Teaching, Vanderbilt University. https://­
cft​.vanderbilt​.edu​/guides​-s­ ub ​-­pages​/blended​- ­a nd​
-­online​-­learning/
Smith, D. P. (2018). Evidencing your lifelong learning
with e-­portfolio. Biochemist, 40(5), 22–24.
Sotola, L. K., & Crede, M. (2020). Regarding class quiz-
zes: A meta-­analytic synthesis of studies on the rela-
tionship between frequent low-­ stakes testing and
class per­for­mance. Educational Psy­chol­ogy Review, 1–20.
Stoewen, D. L. (2017). Dimensions of wellness: Change
your habits, change your life. Canadian Veterinary
Journal, 58(8), 861–862.
Stronge, J. H. (2018). Qualities of effective teachers. ASCD.
Suh, J., Birkhead, S., Galanti, T., Farmer, R., & Seshaiyer,
P. (2019). The use of lesson study to unpack learning
trajectories and deepen teachers’ horizon knowl-
edge. In R. Huang, A. Takahashi, & J. P. da Ponte
(Eds.), Theory and practice of lesson study in mathe­matics
(pp. 755–781). Springer.
Suler, J. (2001). Psy­chol­ogy of cyberspace—­The online
disinhibition effect. Psy­chol­ogy of Cyberspace.
­Sullivan, S., & Glanz, J. (2005). Building effective learning
communities: Strategies for leadership, learning, & collabo-
ration. Corwin Press.
Sussman, N. M. (2000). The dynamic nature of cultural
identity throughout cultural transitions: Why home
is not so sweet. Personality and Social Psy­chol­ogy Review,
4(4), 355–373.
Sussman, R. W. (2014). The myth of race. Harvard Univer-
sity Press.
Sweatt, J. D. (2019). The epige­ne­tic basis of individuality.
Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 25, 51–56.
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019).
Cognitive architecture and instructional design:
20 years ­later. Educational Psy­chol­ogy Review, 1–32.
Syed, M. (2015). Black box thinking: Why most ­people never
learn from their ­mistakes—­But some do. Penguin.
Szolnoki, A., Wang, Z., & Perc, M. (2012). Wisdom of
groups promotes cooperation in evolutionary social
dilemmas. Scientific Reports, 2, 576.
Tavakoli, M., Elias, M., Kismihók, G., & Auer, S. (2020,
July). Quality prediction of open educational re-
sources a metadata-based approach. In 2020 IEEE
20th International Conference on Advanced Learn-
ing Technologies (ICALT) (pp. 29–31). IEEE.
Taylor, R. D., Oberle, E., Durlak, J. A., & Weissberg, R. P.
(2017). Promoting positive youth development
through school-­based social and emotional learning
interventions: A meta-­analysis of follow-up effects.
Child Development, 88(4), 1156–1171.
Tobias, S. (1994). Interest, prior knowledge, and learn-
ing. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 37–54.
Tokuhama-­Espinosa, T. (2010). Mind, Brain, and Education
science: A comprehensive guide to the new brain-­ based
teaching. W. W. Norton & Com­pany.
Tokuhama-­Espinosa, T. (2014). Making classrooms better:
50 practical applications of Mind, Brain, and Education
science. W. W. Norton & Com­pany.
Tokuhama-­Espinosa, T. (2015a). Celebrating the complex-
ity and multidimensionality of “quality” in education:
­Toward a new pro­cess of choosing indicators that mea­
sure in ways that better reflect context. In World Educa-
tion Research Association (WERA) Yearbook (pp.114–159).
Tokuhama-­Espinosa, T. (2015b). The new science of teaching
and learning: Using the best of Mind, Brain, and Educa-
tion science in the classroom. Teachers College Press.
 References 103
Tokuhama-­Espinosa, T. (2019a). The role of technology
in advancing our understanding of the learning
brain. UNESCO: In Focus, 79–91.
Tokuhama-­Espinosa, T. (2019b, December). The learning
sciences framework in educational leadership. Fron-
tiers in Education, 4, Article 136, 1–20. https://­ doi.
org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00136
Tokuhama-­Espinosa, T. (2019c). Neuromyths: Debunking
false ideas about the brain. W. W. Norton & Com­pany.
Tokuhama-­Espinosa, T. (2019d). Five pillars of the mind:
Redesigning education to suit the brain. W. W. Norton &
Com­pany.
Tokuhama-­Espinosa, T., Borja, C., & Tirira, M. (2019a).
Tendencias innovadoras en recursos educativos digitales.
Instituto Iberoamericano del Patrimonio Natu­ ral y
Cultural de la Organización del Convenio Andrés
Bello. https://­www​.ipanc​.org​/wp​-­content​/uploads​
/2019​ / 05​ / Estudio​ - ­d e​ - t­ endencias​ - ­i nnovadoras ​ - ­e n​
-­RED​-­mundial.pdf
Tokuhama-­Espinosa, T., Nazareno, J., & Rappayle, C. (in
review). ThinkWriteMBE: Writing to think, thinking to
write. Teachers College Press.
Tokuhama-­Espinosa, T., Nouri, A., & Daniel, D. (2020).
Evaluating what Mind, Brain, and Education has taught
us about teaching: 2020 International Survey. http://­doi​
.­org​/­10​.­46786​/­ac20​.­1386
Tokuhama-­Espinosa, T. V., Murillo, J. I., & Bernacer, J.
(2016). Adolescent emotional maturation through
divergent models of brain organ­ization. Frontiers in
Psy­chol­ogy, 7, 1263.
Tomczyk, Ł., Mróz, A., Potyrała, K., & Wnęk-­Gozdek, J.
(2020). Digital inclusion from the perspective of
teachers of older adults—­expectations, experiences,
challenges and supporting mea­sures. Gerontology &
Geriatrics Education, 1–16.
Tomita, N., Minamide, A., & Kumano, H. (2020). Neural
correlates supported by eye movements of self-­
focused attention and other-­focused attention in so-
cial situations. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 44,
511–525 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-019​
­-10075-2.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Re-
sponding to the needs of all learners. ASCD.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in
mixed-­ability classrooms. ASCD.
Tresp, V., Sharifzadeh, S., & Konopatzki, D. (2019). A
model for perception and memory. In Conference on
Cognitive Computational Neuroscience, Berlin.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment ­under
uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157),
1124–1131.
Utah State Board of Education. (2020). Kindergarten.
https://­www.schools.utah.gov/curr/kindergarten
Vamos, S., Okan, O., Sentell, T., & Rootman, I. (2020).
Making a case for “Education for health literacy”: An
international perspective. International Journal of En-
vironmental Research and Public Health, 17(4), 1436.
Van Alten, D. C. D., Phielix, C., Janssen, J., & Kester, L.
(2019). Effects of flipping the classroom on learning
outcomes and satisfaction: A meta-­analysis. Educa-
tional Research Review, 28, 100281.
Van Kesteren, M. T. R., Ruiter, D. J., Fernández, G., &
Henson, R. N. (2012). How schema and novelty aug-
ment memory formation. Trends in Neurosciences,
35(4), 211–219.
Vazire, S., & Mehl, M. R. (2008). Knowing me, knowing
you: The accuracy and unique predictive validity of self-­
ratings and other-­ratings of daily be­hav­ior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psy­chol­ogy, 95(5), 1202–1216.
Vissenberg, J., & d’Haenens, L. (2020). Protecting youths’
wellbeing online: Studying the associations between
opportunities, risks, and resilience. Media and Com-
munication, 8(2), 175–184.
Vogel, S., & Schwabe, L. (2016). Learning and memory
­under stress: Implications for the classroom. npj Sci-
ence of Learning, 1(1), 1–10.
Volz, K. G., Schooler, L. J., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2010).
It just felt right: The neural correlates of the flu-
ency heuristic. Consciousness and Cognition, 19(3),
829–837.
Vygotsky, L. (1978a). Interaction between learning and
development. Readings on the Development of C ­ hildren,
23(3), 34–41.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Social constructivism. Mind in society.
Harvard University Press.
Wellman, H. M. (2018). Theory of mind: The art. Eu­ro­pean
Journal of Developmental Psy­chol­ogy, 15(6), 728–755.
Whitehead, S. D., & Ballard, D. H. (1991). Learning to
perceive and act by trial and error. Machine Learning,
7(1), 45–83.
Whitney, J., & Nave, B. (2020). Student-centered learn-
ing through the lends of Universal Design for Learn-
ing: Lessons from university and K-12 classrooms.
In S. Hoidn & M. Klemenčič (Eds.), The Routledge in-
ternational handbook of student-­ centered learning and
teaching in higher education. Routledge.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). What is backward de-
sign? Understanding by Design, 1, 7–19.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by de-
sign. ASCD.
Williams, C. (2020, April 23). $23M to get Detroit students
tablets, Internet amid pandemic. ABC News. https://­
abcnews​ . go​ . com​ / Health​ / wireStory​ / 23m​ - ­p rovide​
-­laptops​-­detroit​-­students​-­amid​-­pandemic​-70307689
Williams, G., & Smith, A. P. (2018). A longitudinal study
of the well-­ being of students using the Student
104 References
Wellbeing Pro­ cess Questionnaire (Student WPQ).
Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science,
24(4), 1–6.
Wilson, D., & Conyers, M. (2020a). Developing growth
mindsets: Princi­ples and practices for maximizing students’
potential. ASCD.
Wilson, D., & Conyers, M. (2020b). Five big ideas for effec-
tive teaching: Connecting Mind, Brain, and Education re-
search to classroom practice. Teachers College Press.
Wilson, S., Galliers, J., & Fone, J. (2006, November). Not
all sharing is equal: The impact of a large display on
small group collaborative work. In Proceedings of the
2006 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported
Cooperative Work (pp. 25–28).
Windschitl, M. A., & Stroupe, D. (2017). The three-­story
challenge: Implications of the next generation sci-
ence standards for teacher preparation. Journal of
Teacher Education, 68(3), 251–261.
Worstall, T. (2013, December 2). Hans Rosling and Ha-­
Joon Change agree, the washing machine is a more
impor­tant invention than the Internet. Forbes. https://­
www​.forbes​.com​/sites​/timworstall​/2013​/12​/02​/hans​
-­r osling​ -­a nd​ -­h a​ -­j oon​ -­c hang​ -­a gree​ -­t he​ -­w ashing​
-­machine​-­is​-­a​-­more​-­important​-­invention​-­than​-­the​
-­internet​/?sh​=124c6ef44b2b
Yakimova, S., Maintenant, C., & Taillandier-­Schmitt, A.
(2020). How positive and negative emotions influ-
ence cognitive per­ for­
mance in secondary schools.
Psychological Applications and Trends, 79.
Yang, Q., Zhao, D., Wu, Y., Tang, P., Gu, R., & Luo, Y.-­J.
(2018). Differentiating the influence of incidental
anger and fear on risk decision-­making. Physiology &
Be­hav­ior, 184, 179–188.
Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of
strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-­formation.
Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18,
459–482.
Zelazo, P. D. (2015). Executive function: Reflection, itera-
tive repro­ cessing, complexity, and the developing
brain. Developmental Review, 38, 55–68.
Zhang, L., Basham, J. D., & Lowrey, K. A. (2020). Foun-
dations for reinventing the global education system:
Personalized learning supported through universal
design for learning. In T. D. Neimann & U. M. Stelson
(Eds.), Challenges and opportunities in global approaches
to education (pp. 146–163). IGI Global.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2014). Comparing
students’ self-­discipline and self-­regulation mea­sures
and their prediction of academic achievement. Con­
temporary Educational Psy­chol­ogy, 39(2), 145–155.
Zoeram, S. B., Salmani, M. E., Lashkarbolouki, T., &
Goudarzi, I. (2019). Hippocampal orexin receptor
blocking prevented the stress induced social learning
and memory deficits. Neurobiology of Learning and
Memory, 157, 12–23.
Zohny, H. (2015). The myth of cognitive enhancement
drugs. Neuroethics, 8(3), 257–269.
Zou, X., Tam, K. P., Morris, M. W., Lee, S. L., Lau, I. Y. M.,
& Chiu, C. Y. (2009). Culture as common sense: Per-
ceived consensus versus personal beliefs as mecha-
nisms of cultural influence. Journal of Personality and
Social Psy­chol­ogy, 97(4), 579.
Zulkiply, N., & Burt, J. S. (2013). The exemplar interleav-
ing effect in inductive learning: Moderation by the
difficulty of category discriminations. Memory & Cog-
nition, 41(1), 16–27.
Zygouris-­Coe, V. I. (2019). Benefits and challenges of col-
laborative learning in online teacher education. In
Handbook of research on emerging practices and methods for
K-12 online and blended learning (pp. 33–56). IGI Global.

60-Year Curriculum, The (Dede &
Richards), 27
Abou-Hanna et al., 2021, 24
Acosta-Tello, 2015, 69
Adelstein & Barbour, 2017, 75
Agarwal & Agostinello, 2020,
22
Agarwal & Roediger III, 2018, 5
Agnafors et al., 2020, 23
Akcaoglu & Lee, 2016, 34
Alexander et al., 2016, 61
Allen & Seaman, 2016, 32, 61
Amaya et al., 2013, 12
American Farm Bureau
Federation, 2020, 61
American Federation of
Teachers, 10, 22
Anderson, 2020, 34
Angelo & Cross, 1993, 6
Arnold & Winkielman, 2020, 34
Arslan, 2018, 26
ASCD, 2012, 29
Baker, 2013, 25
Baker & Di Carlo, 2020, 62
Baker et al., 2018, 54
Ball et al., 2008, xvii
Bar, 2009, 16
Barto et al., 1981, xii
Batchelor, Danielle, vii
Battersby, 2016, 20
Baxter & Lederman, 1999, xvii
Belin et al., 2004, 36
Belkin et al., 2006, 34
Bender, 1981, 1
Berger, 2008, 34
Bergmann & Sams, 2012, 86
Birnbaum et al., 2013, 21
Bloom, 1968, xv, 9, 74, 77–8
Bloom, 1984, xv, 68–69
Bloom, Benjamin, 69, 74
Boaler et al., 2000, 19
Boettcher, 2007, 33
Bond, 2020, 17
Bonvillain, 2019, 36
Borja, Cynthia, vii
Boud et al., 2013, 17
Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020, 33
Bray & McClaskey, 2014, 33
Brown & Green, 2019, 32
Bruhn et al., 2014, 6
Bruner, 1960, 9
Brunmair & Richter, 2019, 22
Bubb & Jones, 2020, 28
Index
AUTHOR AND BOOK NAMES INDEX
Buehl, 2007, 23
Buelin et al., 2019, 15
Bullock, 2011, 6
Burgess et al., 2018, 35
Busselle, 2017, 33
Bustamante et al., 2018, 6
California’s Free Educational
Resources for Distance
Learning, x
Canada, 1998, 28
Carlson et al., 2013, 36
Carpenter, 2014, 22
CAST, 10
Cazarez, 2020, 26
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RL.1.4,
2020, 44
Chadha, 2019, 38
Chan et al., 2018, 42
Chapman et al., 2020, 24
Charmatz, 2020, 9
Cheng et al., 2019, 76
Chong et al., 2018, 38
Clark, Erin, vii
Clements & Sarama, 2014, 9
Clinton & Hattie, 2014, 29
Condliffe, 2017, 5
Conradson, 2016, 28
Coolidge & Wynn, 2018, 2
Cooper et al., 2014, 34
Corballis, 2014, 1
Corbin Frazier & Eick, 2015, 6
Costa & Kallick, 2005, 26
Costandi, 2016, 33
Crick, 1979, 24
Csibra & Gergely, 2006, 37
Curwin, 2014, 29
Dabbagh, Marra, & Howland,
2018, 75
Dabrowski et al., 2018, 24
Damasio, 2000, 5
Damisch et al., 2010, 21
Danley, 2015, 6
Darling-Hammond, 2010, 74
Darling-Hammond & Hyler,
2020, 62
Darling-Hammond et al., 2017,
68
Darling-Hammond et al., 2020, 4
Deans for Impact, 2015, viii
Dede, 2014, 16
Dede & Richards, 2020, 27
Dee & Gershenson, 2017, 18
Dehaene, 2014, 15
105
Delen & Liew, 2016, 26
Delgado et al., 2015, 61
Derakshan & Eysenck, 2010, 35
Dewey, John, 27
Diamond, 2012, 25
Diamond, 2013, xiii
Diamond, 2014a, 25
Diamond, 2014b, 25
Diamond 2014c, 25
Diamond, 2016, 25
Diamond, Adele, 25
Diamond & Ling, 2016, 25
Diamond & Ling, 2019, 25
Dimaggio et al., 2011, 36
Ding et al., 2020, xiii
D’Mello & Rozenkrantz, 2020, 24
Dolcos et al., 2011, 35
Dolcos et al., 2020, 35
Domen et al., 2020, 11
Dorn et al., 2020, xi, xiii, 33
Duolingo, 51
Dweck, 2008, 5
Dweck, Carol, 26
Dweck & Yeager, 2019, 4
Dypedokk Johnsen, 2019, 24
Easton, 1997, 28
Eccles, 1964, 33
EDUTOPIA, 55
Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (1965), 9
Engzell et al., 2020, xi
Ertmer et al., 2010, 6
Eury, 2020, 26
Everly & Lating, 2019, 30
Fabelico & Afalla, 2020, 34
Fan et al., 2005, 4
Fehr & Gintis, 2007, 37
Ferbinteanu, 2019, 34
Fields, Sylvie, vii
Filippi, 2020, 36
Fine, 2010, 1
Fischer, 2007, xviii
Fisher et al., 2016, 5
Fisher et al., 2018, 16
Five Pillars of the Mind
(Tokuhama-Espinosa), viii,
32, 114
Fosslien & Duffy, 2020, xiv
Fox & Christoff, 2018, 17
Francis et al., 2019, 35
Frenzel et al., 2019, 34
Fullan, Michael, iii
Fuster, 1997, 36
Gallup, 2020, 34
Galton, 1869, 28
Galton, Francis Sir, 28
Ganapathy et al., 2017, 35
Garcia & Weiss, 2019, 62
Gardner, 2011, 5
Garwood et al., 2017, 6
Gay, 2018, 18
Gazzaniga, 2012, 28
Gegenfurtner & Ebner, 2019, 54
Gehlbach & Vriesema, 2019, 20
Geogebra, 48, 49f, 50
GeoKids, 52
Goodman, 2019, 26
Goodway et al., 2019, 17
Goodyear et al., 2019, 28
Gorham, Thomas, vii
Gourgey, 2001, 23
Gray & DiLoreto, 2016, 41
Greene, 2016, 21
Grigsby-Toussaint et al., 2017, 28
Gross, 2020, 18
Grundy, 2020, 25
Guerriero, 2014, viii, xvii
Guerriero, 2017, viii, xvii
Guskey & Anderman, 2013, 6
Guskey & Bailey, 2010, 13
Habits of Mind (Costa & Kallick),
26
Hall, 1989, 17
Hall et al., 2012, 10
Hammond, 2014, xviii
Hargreaves, 2019, 37
Harvard University Extension
School, vii, viii, 49f, 76
Hasan et al., 2019, 33
Hatfield et al., 2014, 35
Hattie, 2012, 4, 5
Hattie & Zierer, 2019, 29
Herold et al., 2018, 28
Herreid, 2005, 5
Higgins, Mary, vii
Hodges et al., 2020, viii
Holle et al., 2012, 34
Honary et al., 2019, 28
Howard-Jones, Paul, 24
Hudson et al., 2020, 21
Huebner, 2004, 5
Hughes & Lee, 2019, 6
Humiston et al., 2020, 38
Hutchinson & Barrett, 2019, 18
Ifenthaler et al., 2019, 54
Immordino-Yang, 2015, 30
106 Index
Immordino-Yang & Damasio,
2007, 34, 35
Immordino-Yang et al., 2019, 5
“Improving the K-23 Online
Course Design Review
Process: Experts Weigh In
on iNACOL National
Standards for Quality
Online Courses” (Adelstein
& Barbour), 75
Ingvarson & Rowley, 2017, 62
Interleaving in Math (AFT), 22
International Baccalaureate, 6, 22
Israelashvili et al., 2019, 34
Jimenez et al., 2016, 11
Johnson, 2009, 36
Johnson, 2019, 34
Johnson, 2020, xi
Joinson, 1998, 38
Jones, 2007, 35
Jones & Brown, 2011, 5
K–12 Blended and Online
Competencies, Standards,
Retention, and Attitudes
(Borup), 75
Kahneman, 2011, 20
Kalil & Ryan, 2020, 72
Kamehameha Schools, vii, xiii
Kandel, 2007, 5
Kang, 2016, 22, 42
Kaplan-Rakowski, 2020, 33
Karnieli, 2009, 31
Kauchak & Eggan, 1998, xii
Kelly, Curtis, vii
Kendeou et al., 2016, 28
Khan, 2012, 36
Khan Academy, xiv, 32, 48, 49,
65
Kilmurray, Michael, vii
Kim et al., 2017, 25
Kim et al., 2020, 35
Kirst & Venezia, 2001, 9
Kitayama & Park, 2010, 18
Kitayama & Uskul, 2011, 18
Kleitman & Narciss, 2019, 25
Kogtikov et al., 2016, 22
Korbach et al., 2018, 21
Kovanovig et al., 2015, 24
Kowalski, 2018, 1
Kress & Elias, 2019, 26
Kuhl & Chun, 2014, xvi
Lax, Mark, vii
Layton, 2015, 74
Leppink, 2017, 16
Lombardi, 2007, 34
Lorentz, 2020, 17
Luo et al., 2020, 47
Lyons, 2018, 29
Mace, Ron, 10
Maeshiro, Miki, vii
Maheu et al., 2019, 5
Make Just One Change (Rothstein
& Santana), 23
Making Classrooms Better
(Tokuhama-Espinosa), 5,
114
Manyozo, 2016, 39
Maquet, 2001, 28
Marhamah & Mulyadi, 2013, 6
Markets & Markets, 2020, 51
Marsh et al., 2018, 18
Martin, 2010, 23
Martin, 2019, 12
Martin & Martin, 2012, 34
Martin et al., 2020, 63
Marzano et al., 2003, 4
Mather & Sutherland, 2011, 2
Mayer, 2019, 75
McLaughlin, 1990, 17
McTighe, Jay, 42
McTighe & Silver, 2020, 16
Meaningful Online Learning
(Dabbagh et al.), 75
Mehrabi et al., 2020, 54
Merzenich et al., 2016, 5
Metcalfe, 2017, 29
Meyer, Anne, 10
Miller, 2014, 30
Miller, 2017, 39
Miller & Milgram, 1963, 34
Mishra & Koehler, 2006, xvii
Mitra, 2015, 43
Mitra, Sugata, 43
Mitra & Crawley, 2014, 43
Moffit, 2012, 25
Moffit et al., 2011, 25
Moser et al., 2020, 28
Nash & Schlosser, 2015, 11
National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine,
2018, 28
National Education Association,
10
National Taskforce on Universal
Design for Learning, 10
Nazareno, Jovi, vii
Nelson, Drew, vii
Neuromyths (Tokuhama-
Espinosa), viii, 2
Ng, 2018, 27
Nielsen et al., 2016, 28
Nilsson, 2008, xvii
No Child Left Behind (2001), 9
Noddings, 2005, 28
Nordrum et al., 2013, 15
NYC Children, 2020, xi
O’Byrne & Texier, 2020, xi
OECD, 2021, viii, xvii, 73,
Ormrod, 2017, 5
Oron Semper et al., 2016, 34
Outhwaite et al., 2019, xv
Palmer, 2017, 74
Pan & Shao, 2020, 54
Paniagua, 2019, 75
Panksepp et al., 2017, 35
Parisi et al., 2019, 22
Parksinson, 2020, 34
Pashler and colleagues, 2008, 1
Pedretti et al., 2017, 15
Peetz et al., 2020, 24
Perrone-Bettolotti et al., 2014, 20
Perry & Karpova, 2017, 74
Pestalozzi, Johann Heinrich, 39
Peters & Besley, 2020, xiii
Phelps-Coco, Adrienne, vii
Phirangee & Malec, 2017, 37
Photomath, 49, 50
Piaget, 2003, 27
Piaget & Papert, 1967, 9
Pinilla et al., 2020, 34
Pinker 2003, 5
Pióa & Harris, 2019, 75
Piray et al., 2019, 42
Popham, 1999, 1
Post et al., 2020, 26
Powell et al., 2015, 61
Price & O’Donovan 2006, 12
Pulham & Graham, 2018, 61
Purnell et al., 2020, 6
Quality assurance in online
education (Paniagua), 75
Radford, 1999, 1
RAND Corporation, 63, 64, 66
Rayner, 2001, 22
Rettie & Daniels, 2020, 26
Richland et al., 2005, 2
Ritchhart et al., 2011, 5
Roche, 2017, 27
Rodriguez, 2012, 6
Rogowsky et al., 2020, 1
Rose, 2016, 86
Rose, David, 10
Rose & Meyer, 2002, 10
Rosen, 2008, 1
Rosenthal, 2002, 18
Rosenthal, 2010, 18
Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968, 19
Ross & Atkinson, 2020, 36
Rothman, 2018, 16
Rothstein & Santana, 2011, 23
Rubie-Davies, 2006, 5, 18, 19
Rubie-Davies et al., 2006, 19, 20
Rury, 2012, 61
Samoggia & Riedel, 2020, 28
Sapolsky, 2017, 5
Sauce & Matzel, 2013, 9
Savery, 2015, 5
Schilbach et al., 2008, 34
Schwartz, 2016, 39
Schwartz, Kyle, 39
Schwartz & Paré-Blagoev, 2017, 5
Schwartz et al., 2020, 63
Scoular et al., 2020, 37
Scriven 1994, xvii
Seymou et al., 2020, 61
Shanthamallu et al., 2019, 24
Shenhav et al., 2017, 18
Shing & Brod, 2016, xii
Shouman & Momdijan, 2019, 16
Shpeizer & Glassner, 2020, 2
Sies, 2019, 30
Siregar et al., 2018, 26
Sirois et al., 2008, xii, 9
Smith, 2018, 12
Smith & Brame, 2017, 61
Socrates, 24, 31
Sotola & Crede, 2020, 29
Stoewen, 2017, 28
Strong, 2018, 31
Suh et al., 2019, 32
Suler, 2001, 38
Sullivan & Glanz, 2005, 37
Sussman, 2000, 18
Sussman, 2014, 1
Sweatt, 2019, 28
Sweller et al., 2019, 75
Syed, 2015, 29
Szolnoki et al., 2012, 36
Tavakoli et al., 2020, 46
Taylor et al., 2017, xiii
Tobias, 1994, 16
Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2010, 4
Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2014, 5,
11, 33
Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2015a, 1
Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2015b, 48
Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2019a, viii,
xvii
Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2019b, viii
Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2019c, viii,
1, 2, 18, 42
Tokuhama- Espinosa, 2019d,
viii, 32
Tokuhama-Espinosa et al., 2020,
viii, xii, 2, 3, 4
Tokuhama-Espinosa et al., in
review, 17
Tomczyk et al., 2020, 27
Tomita et al., 2020, 17
Tomlinson, 1999, 28
Tomlinson, 2001, 9
Tomlinson, 2014, 33
Tresp et al., 2019, 34
Tversky & Kahneman, 1974, 20
Universal Design for Learning (Hall
et al.), 10
Vamos et al., 2020, 28
Van Alten et al., 2019, 16
Van Kesteren et al., 2012, 18
Vazire & Mehl, 2008, 37
Vissenberg & Haenens, 2020, 17
Vogel & Schwabe, 2016, 30
Volkman, Julia, vii
Volz et al., 2010, 21
Vygotsky, 1978a, 9
Vygotsky, 1978b, 27
Wellman, 2018, 36
Whitehead & Ballard, 1991, 29
Whitney & Nave, 2020, 15
Whole Child Initiative (ASCD),
29
Wiggins & McTighe, 1998, 42–46
Wiggins & McTighe, 2005, 43–45
Williams, 2020, xi
Williams & Smith, 2018, 31
Wilson & Conyers, 2020a, 26
Wilson et al., 2006, 35
Windschitl & Stroupe, 2017, 9
Wong-Kam, JoAnn, vii
Worstall, 2013, 85
Yakimova et al., 2020, 23
Zelazo, 2015, 11
Zhang et al., 2020, 9
Zoeram et al., 2019, 31
Zohny, 2015, 1
Zou et al., 2009, 18
Zulkiply & Burt, 2013, 43
Zygouris-Coe, 2019, 36
 Index 107
Note: Italic f and t following page numbers refer to figures and tables, respectively
1 + 1 = 3: Collaboration yields
more than individual effort,
xiii, 7t, 37. See also The
whole is greater than the
sum of the parts
10% brain use, 1. See also
Neuromyths
12-step process in instructional
design, 76–84
21st-century soft skills, 27
Academic calendar. See
Year-round calendar
A good diagnosis is half the
cure, 51
All learning passes through the
filter of prior experience
(Principle), xii, 1f, 2, 21, 42
Analogy (analogies), x, xii, 5
Anxiety, xiii, 3, 7, 38, 41, 42
Anyone who can learn from
their mistakes should be
given the opportunity to do
so (Mantra), 7t, 29
A person’s self-perception as a
learner is shaped by
teachers and influences
learning outcomes
(Mantra), 7t, 19, 20, 38
Apps (digital application), xiv, xv,
10, 28, 47, 48, 49f, 50, 51,
52, 55, 58f, 64, 65f, 77, 83
Asynchronous, xiv, xv, 38, 43,
48, 52, 62–69, 65f, 70f, 75,
78, 78f 81, 82f, 83f, 86
benefits of, 66
Attention, xvi, 3t, 4, 17, 18, 29,
authentic learning, 34
chat use and, 81
cognitive load and, 20
metacognition and, 25
novelty and, 41
reflection and, 17
sleeping and dreaming, and,
28
systems, xvi, 2  3, 7t, 18, 20,
28, 34, 35, 38, 75
Attitude, xiv, xvi, 1f, 15, 19, 26,
27, 78, 84, 87
vs. aptitude, 7t, 26
deeper learning and, 26
knowledge, skills, and, 21, 43,
44f, 45f, 46, 57f, 63f, 76,
77, 82t
social contagion and, 34
Authentic learning (Pedagogy),
7t, 24, 34, 37, 38, 81, 85, 86
Autonomy, 7t, 26, 27, 33, 46,
66, 67, 70f
Backward Design (See
Understanding by Design)
Be predictable (Pedagogy), 7t,
16, 41
Bias, 7t, 18, 19f, 20f, 21, 36
Body and brain (Tenet), 3t, 7t, 28
Borderless classroom, 37
Boredom, 30f, 36
SUBJECT INDEX
Breakout rooms, 35, 38, 39, 40f,
58f, 67, 81, 83t, 86
Bundles, xvi, 10, 11, 30, 37,
58–59f, 61, 65t, 66, 77, 82f,
86
California’s Free Educational
Resources For Distance
Learning, x
Canvas, ix, 47f, 49f, 56f, 76
CAST Program, 10
Challenge and threat (Tenet), 3t,
7t, 22, 29, 31, 41
Chat, 39, 41, 50, 65, 65f, 80, 81,
84, 86
Clarification immediacy, 39
Cognitive
flexibility, xiii, 25
load, 7t, 20, 21, 39, 75, 78, 80
Cold call by name (Pedagogy),
7t, 38
Collaborate (See Collaboration,
among students;
Collaboration, between
teachers)
Collaboration
among students (Pedagogy),
7t, 37, 41, 52, 67, 81
between teachers (Pedagogy),
vii, xiv, 7t, 37
Collaborative work (See
Small-group work)
Commiseration, xiii, 39
Common Core State Standards,
44–46
Communication, ix, 7t, 18, 36,
39–41
regularity lowers anxiety and
cognitive load (Mantra),
41
Compassion (See also Self-
compassion), xiii, 54
Competencies, xiv, 11, 43, 44f,
45, 45t, 76, 82
Conscious and unconscious
processes (Tenet), 3t, 7t, 17,
18, 35, 36
Constant changes (Principle), 2,
7t, 11, 15
Context and culture, xviif
Coronavirus (See COVID-19)
COVID-19
aftermath: Nothing will be the
same again, xv
catalyst for educational
change, viii, xi, xiii, xiv,
6, 9, 15, 16, 31, 37, 85
change in student–parent–
teacher dynamic and, 6,
28, 72
changes that will last beyond
the, 27, 61
demands of on teachers, 70
exposes deficiencies in
education, 69
online teaching and, xii, 35,
64
reactions in education to, vii,
viii–ix, 28, 70
resources online, resulting
from, 46, 55
social distancing, 34
student-driven curriculum
and, , 33
teacher lifelong learning, 27,
28
teacher profile and, xvii
teachers as students during
the, 23
teacher shortage and, 62
Critical thinking, xiv, 33, 52, 79t,
86
Culture, ixf, xviif, xviii, 1f, 2, 3t,
4t, 6, 7t, 18, 21, 55
Curriculum, ixf, xiv, xvi, 7t, 9,
10, 17, 21, 27, 32, 33, 39,
43, 47, 73, 77, 84, 85
Dare to err (Goal), 7t, 29, 30
Deeper learning (Goal), xvi, 4,
7t, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 26,
43, 75, 78, 84, 85, 87
Depression xvi, (Tenet), 3t, 41
Developmental and experiential
learning (Tenet), 7t, 27, 32,
33
Diagnosis, 45, 46, 51, 81, 92
Differentiated homework
(Pedagogy), x, 6, 7t, 11, 66,
69, 70f
Differentiation (Goal), 7t, 10, 11,
32, 33, 34, 60, 64, 65f, 67,
70f
Different potentials (Principle),
2, 7t, 22
Digital educational resources, xv,
xviii, 11, 48, 49f, 50t, 52,
53, 85
Discussion boards, 23, 30, 39,
40, 54, 58–59f, 64, 65f, 67,
71t, 72, 73f, 77t, 78, 79t,
80, 81, 82f, 83f, 86
Disinhibition (Mantra), 7t, 38,
58f
Distress (See also Eustress), 3, 30
Do-overs (Pedagogy), 7t, 29, 82,
82f, 84, 85
E-portfolios (Pedagogy), 7t, 12,
46f, 58–59f
Education1st Schools, xiii
Educator as learning scientist,
viii, xvii, xviii
Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (1965), 9
Emergency remote teaching,
viii, Appendix B
Emotion-board check-ins, 6, 78
Emotions and cognition (Tenet),
7t, 25, 32, 34, 35
Empathy (Pedagogy), xiii, 6, 7t,
35, 36, 45, 65
Enthusiasm, 27, 36
Eustress, 30, 20f
Evaluation (See also
Understanding by Design),
xiv, xvi, 5, 7t, 9, 15, 16,
26–27, 75, 76, 78
asynchronous and
synchronous use of, 82f
authentic, 85
diagnosis and, , 46, 51
differentiated, 86
as differentiated homework,
11, 33
history of, 9
as a teaching tool, 29, 45, 74,
77f, 81, 83, 87
time for, 61, 73–74, 76
tools, 55, 57f
Executive functions, xiii, 7t, 25
Exit ticket, 15
Facial expressions and emotion
(Tenet), 3t, 7t, 35, 36
Failure begets failure, 23
Feedback (Tenet), xvi, xv, 3, 4t,
5, 12, 15, 16, 17, 46, 54,
58f, 78
asynchronous and
synchronous activities
for, 66, 67, 70f, 76
dialogic, 84, 86
discussion board exchange,
78
inner voice and, 25
peer, 65f, 79, 83f
regularity of, 72, 73
role of in learning, 29, 45, 62,
81, 82
time for, x, 62
Feedforward (Pedagogy), 7t, 15,
75
Fixed mindsets (See Mindsets)
Flexibility (Pedagogy), 7t, 70
attitude, xvi
cognitive, xiii, 25
teacher, 31
time for mastery and, 6
virtual classroom, 11, 32, 61
Flipped classroom (Pedagogy),
xiv, 7t, 16, 17, 22, 30, 37,
39, 43, 47, 58  59f, 61, 64,
65f, 66, 69, 75, 77, 78, 81,
84, 85, 86
Formative evaluation
(Pedagogy), xvi, 5, 7t, 15,
29, 81, 82f. See also
Evaluation
Free will, 2, 28
Frequent explicit, formative
evaluation serves both
student and teacher
(Mantra), 7t, 15, 42
Frequent low-stakes testing
(Pedagogy), 7t, 29, 30, 80,
85
Games (gamification), 10, 47,
48, 49f, 50, 51, 52, 65f, 66,
77
108 Index
Gaps
between privileged and poor,
xi
in knowledge, xii, xv, 9–11,
32, 64, 78, 84
Get in synch (Pedagogy), 7t, 39
Gifted learners, 11, 19
Goldilocks spot (See Yerkes-
Dodson curve)
Grade level lesson plans, ix, 48
Grit, 26, 82f
Growth mindset (see Mindsets)
Help students find success every
day (Pedagogy), 7t, 22, 23
Heuristics (Pedagogy), 7t, 16, 20,
21. See also Bias
Higher order thinking xiii, xvi,
16, 17, 23, 24, 25, 33, 35,
46, 48, 52, 75, 78. See also
Metacognition
High expectations (Pedagogy), 9,
18, 19, 20, 21, 38,
Holistic, 27, 28. See also
Whole-child approach
Homeschooling, ix, xiv
Humane treatment, xv, 86
Inclusion, 6, 25
Inhibitory control, xiii, 25
Interleaving, 6, 7t, 21  22, 33,
42, 43, 85
International Baccalaureate, 6, 22
I see, I think, I wonder, 5, 35, 41,
81. See also Thinking
Routines, Harvard Project
Zero
It is harder to ask a good
question than to answer
one (Mantra), 7t, 23
It’s a moving target: Adjust on
the fly (Mantra), 7t, 31
I used to think. And now I think,
40f, 46. See also Thinking
Routines, Harvard Project
Zero)
Jigsaw, 6, 67
Journaling, 6, 46t, 65f
Junior Metacognitive Awareness
Inventory, 25
Kamehameha Schools, vii, xiii
Knowledge, xii, xiv, xv, 10, 18,
21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 30, 42,
43, 44f, 45f, 46, 47, 52, 57f,
63f, 76, 77, 78, 82f, 83, 86.
See also Understanding by
Design
of the brain, xvii
consolidation, 30
content, xviif, 48, 51, 83
core (conceptual;
foundational), 17, 29,
34, 75
flipped video content, 78
gaps in, xii, xv, 64
indigenous, xiv
objective, 76
pedagogical, xviif, 6
pedagogical content, xviif
prerequisite, 11, 32, 75
prior, 2, 9, 16, 34
professional, 1
self- (See Self-knowledge)
Know thyself (Pedagogy), 7t, 31
Learning
analytics, 54, 58  59f
can and should be measured
in terms of product,
process and progress
(Pedagogy), 7t, 11, 15
community, x, 7t, 35, 37, 58f,
75, 76f, 77, 80, 81
how to learn (Mantra), xv, 7t,
24
is cyclical (Tenet), x, 2, 3t, 23,
86
lifelong (Pedagogy), x, xvi, 4,
7t, 27
limits are often self-imposed
(Mantra), 7t, 27
management system (LMS),
ix, xv, 10, 47, 47f, 50t,
52, 54, 55, 56f, 65, 77
sciences, viii, ixf, xii, xvii,
xviii, 2, 10, 76
styles, 1. See also Neuromyths
trajectory, 7t, 32. See also
Neuroconstructivism
Left-brain, right brain, 1. See also
Neuromyths
Listen (Pedagogy), 7t, 37, 39, 72,
83, 86
Literacies, xv, 61
Long-term memory (See
Memory)
Love what you do or learn from
it (Pedagogy), 7t, 26
Low-stakes testing (Pedagogy),
7t, 29, 30, 58, 78, 85
Mantras in education, 7t, 8
Mastery learning (Goal), xv, xvi,
6, 7t, 9–12, 15, 17, 32, 46,
51, 68, 69, 74, 85, 86
Meditation, 21, 49f, 54
Meet students at their starting
points, xii, xv, xvi, 7t, 10,
55, 86
Memory, xiii, 4t, 21, 22, 24, 25,
29, 33, 34, 38, 51, 78, 80
Memory systems and Attention
systems, xvi, 2t, 4, 7t, 16,
18, 20, 28, 30, 35, 36, 38,
39, 75
Mental flexibility (Pedagogy), 7t,
25, 31
Mental health, xi, 23, 28, 33, 51,
64, 71t, 72, 86
Messaging (See Communication)
Metacognition, 3t, 24
Metacognitive awareness, 7t,
24–25, 29
Metacognitive Awareness
Inventory (See Junior
Metacognitive Awareness
Inventory).
MICDS School, Missouri, vii
Mind, Brain, and Education
science, viii, ixf, xii, xvii,
xviii, 1, 2, 3, 4t, 6, 8, 18,
24, 76
Mindfulness, 3t, 21, 26
Mindsets, viii, 84, 86
fixed, 4
growth (goal), vii, xiii, 2, 7t,
19, 26, 27, 28, 57f, 87
Mind wandering is not a waste
of time (Mantra), 7t, 17
Mistakes, xvii, xviii, 4, 7t, 15,
24, 27, 29, 80
Mistakes are a natural part of
learning (Mantra), 7t, 29
Modeling, 23, 26, 61
MOOCs (Massive Online Open
Courses), 49f, 53, 54, 65f, 66
Moodle, ix, 47f, 56f
Motivation (Tenet), 3t, 4, 7t, 10,
22, 24, 26, 27, 29, 31f, 51,
54, 58f, 65f, 66, 70f
Moving online, xii, xiii, xiv, xv,
61, 64, 72, 74, 84, 85
Multi-course platforms, 49f, 53
Multitasking (See also
Neuromyths), 39
National Education Association,
10
Nature via nurture plus free
will, 2, 3, 28
Nature vs. nurture, 2, 4f, 28
Neuroconstructivism
(Pedagogy), viii, 7t, 9, 32
Neuromyths, 1, 18, 19f, 27
Neuroplasticity (Principle), 2t, 4,
7t, 15, 26, 27, 31
Neuroscience of Learning: An
Introduction to Mind,
Brain, Health and Education
(course), viii, 114
Neurotransmitter, 30, 31, 42
Novelty and patterns (Tenet), 3t,
7t, 16, 20, 41, 75
Nutrition (Tenet), xi, 3t, 28, 49f,
51
Objectives (See also Understanding
by Design), xiv, xvi, xviii, 5,
6, 7t, 10, 11, 15, 16, 32, 33,
40f, 43, 44f, 45f, 46, 47, 48,
52, 53, 55, 57f, 59f, 60, 64,
66, 70f, 74f, 75, 76, 77, 78,
81, 83, 84, 85
OECD (Organisation for
Economic Co-operation
and Development), viii,
xvii, 73
One-minute paper, 6, 81
Online disinhibition effect
(Mantra), 7t, 38, 58f
Online learning environments,
66
Opportunities, viii, x, xiii, xiv,
xvi, 27, 46, 55, 67, 74, 82f,
84, 86, 87
Optimal performance (Goal), 7t,
30f, 31, 32
Pandemic (See COVID-19)
Passion, 34, 36
Pedagogical content knowledge,
xviif, 6, 76
Pedagogy, viii, ixf, xiv, xvi, 4, 5,
6, 7t, 9, 10, 58f, 63f
People can and do affect each
other’s emotional states.
(See also Social contagion)
(Goal), 7t, 34
Perception
self-, xvi, 18, 19f, 20, 22, 38
sensory, 21, 34. See also Voice
social, xvi, 35
Personalization (Goal), xv, 7t,
16, 34, 38, 61, 67, 70f, 84,
87
Perspective taking, xiii, 6, 18,
36, 85, 87
Physical activity (Tenet), 3t, 28,
43, 51, 54
Planning (See also Understanding
by Design), viii, x, 31, 42, 44
for the borderless classroom,
37
as a higher executive
function, xiii, 25
for instructional design, 29,
56f, 60, 64
skills, 52, 53
tools, 49f, 55, 75
transdisciplinary, 33
for UDL pedagogy, 10
Podcast, 10, 49f, 52, 53, 65f, 77
Prepared lessons, 48, 49f
Prerecording lessons (See Flipped
classroom)
Presentation template, 39, 40f,
59f, 76
Principle 1. 2, 9, 33. See also
Uniqueness
Principle 2. 2t, 22. See also
Different potentials
Principle 3. 2, 2t, 16, 18, 21, 27,
42. See also Prior
experiences
Principle 4. 2, 2t, 11, 15. See also
Constant changes
Principle 5. 2t, 4, 15, 26, 27. See
also Neuroplasticity
Principle 6. 2t, 4, 18, 38, 39, 75.
See also Memory systems
and Attention systems
Principles of Mind, Brain, and
Education science, 1f, 2, 7t,
76
Prior experiences (Principle), 2t,
7t, 11, 16, 18, 20, 42
Prioritize social emotional
learning over content
memorization (Mantra),
xiii, xiv, xvi, xviii, 7t, 25,
35, 36, , 86
Problem solving, 11, 17, 25, 35,
37, 52, 65f, 69
Product, Process, Progress
(Pedagogy), 7t, 11, 12
rubric, 13–14t, 15
Protocols for a smooth class, 36,
39, 69, 70, 71t, 72, 80
Questioning
as a methodology (Pedagogy),
5, 7t,17, 23, 29, 31, 39,
41, 54, 66, 67, 78, 80
communication and, 72, 73f,
83
flipping and, 86
 Index 109
implicit learning and, 64
in Understanding by Design,
43
purpose of education, xi, xiii,
xiv, xv, 9, 84, 87
teacher’s ability to respond
and, 68
Questions
of the day, 6
essential, 57f
Socratic, 24, 25
Reasoning, 25
Reflection (Pedagogy), 17, 25,
57–59f, 65f, 81
3-2-1, xvii, 39, 78, 82f
group, 18
self-, 4t
time for, 7t, 66
Reflection papers (See Reflection,
3-2-1)
Relevant
and meaningful contexts, 4f,
7t, 23, 24, 33, 34, 38
curriculum (Goal), 7t, 32, 33
Repositories, 12, 48, 49f
Resilient (resiliency), vii, viii,
xiii, xvi, 2, 26, 28, 86
Rewrite (Pedagogy), 29, 81
Rubric (Pedagogy), 7t, 12, 13,
15, 45, 48, 49f, 72, 78, 79,
88–89
Same objectives, different
processes, 7t, 10, 33
Schema, 33
Second chances (See Do-overs)
Self
-care, 25, 28
-compassion, xiii
-graded quiz, xviii, 30, 58f,
65f
-knowledge, 31, 36
-perception, 7t, 15, 18, 19, 20,
22, 38
-questioning, 23, 25, 87
-regulation, 7t, 25, 26
-regulation is more important
than innate intelligence
in predicting learning
outcomes (Mantra), 7t,
25, 26
Sensory perception, 21, 34
Share (Pedagogy), xiii, xiv, 7t,
35, 37, 38, 39, 58f, 65f, 67,
73f, 81
Share My Lesson website, ix
Skills (See also Understanding by
Design), 21, 43, 44f, 45f,
46, 47, 48, 52, 57f, 63f, 76,
77, 78, 80, 82f
classroom management, 38, 68
communication (See
Communication)
new teacher, xi, xvi, 68, 81
teacher research, 10
thinking (See Metacognitive
skills)
transfer of, 22
Sleep and dreaming (Tenet),
xviii, 1f, 3t, 4, 18, 28, 30f,
49f, 80
Small-group work (Pedagogy),
5, 7t, 16, 23, 34, 35, 38, 39,
43, 52, 65f, 67, 81, 83, 84
Social
cognitivist theory, 5
contagion (Goal), 7t, 34, 35,
58f, 67, 68, 70t, 76, 85,
86
contexts, xviii
distancing, x
emotional learning (Mantra),
xiii, xiv, xvi, xviii, 7t, 23,
25, 26, 35, 36, 51, 62,
78, 86
exchanges, 34, 36, 37, 39
inclusion, 25
interactions, 4f, 6, 7t, 28, 34,
37, 38, 39, 64, 65f, 66,
70f
promotion, 9
psychology, ixf
skills, 52
Socratic method, 5, 7t, 24, 25
Software, 47, 48, 49f, 53, 55, 69,
77
Some people can do steps.
Everyone can do ramps.
Build ramps (Mantra), 7t, 9
Spaced versus massed practice, 22
Standardized tests, x, 1, 9, 10,
46, 73–74, 85, 86
Start with the end in mind
(Mantra), x, 7t, 16, 75, 85
Stress (Tenet), xii, 3t, 4, 7t, 18,
25, 30, 31, 42, 80
Student-driven curriculum
(Pedagogy), 33, 39
Success begets success (Mantra),
7t, 22, 23
Summative
achievement, 68f
evaluations, xvi, 11, 30, 81, 83
feedback, 5
Summer learning gap, 61, 84
Sweet spot of learning, The 7t,
30, 31. See also Yerkes-
Dodson curve
Synapsis, 33
Synchronous learning, x, xiv,
10, 16, 17, 34, 38, 39, 43,
48, 50f, 52, 55, 58f, 60  65,
65f, 66, 68, 69, 75  78,
80 82, 82 83f, 86
benefits of, 67, 70f
Teachers’ new pedagogical
knowledge, xviii
Teachers’ professional
development, viii, xiv, xvii,
1, 46, 54, 55, 61, 84,
TeachersPayTeachers, ix
TeacherTube, xiv
Teaching-student-learning
dynamic, x, 6, 16, 43, 61,
67
Tenet 1, 3t, 4, 26, 29. See also
Motivation
Tenet 2, 3t, 25, 32. See also
Emotions and cognition
Tenet 3, 3t, 30. See also Stress
Tenet 4, 3t, 41, See also Anxiety
Tenet 5, 3t, See also Depression
Tenet 6, 3t, 22, 29, 31, 41. See
also Challenge and threat
Tenet 7, 3t, 35. See also Facial
expressions and emotion
Tenet 8, 3t, 36. See also Voices
Tenet 9, 3t, 34, 37, 38, 39. See
also Social interactions
Tenet 10, 3t, 38. See also
Attention
Tenet 11, 3t, 32. See also
Learning, is cyclical
Tenet 12, 3t, 17, 18, 36. See also
Conscious and unconscious
processes
Tenet 13, 3t, 27, 32, 33. See also
Developmental and
experiential learning
Tenet 14, 3t, 28. See also Body
and brain
Tenet 15, 3t,. See also Sleep and
dreaming
Tenet 16, 3t,. See also Nutrition
Tenet 17, 3t,. See also Physical
activity
Tenet 18, 3t, 24. See also Use it or
lose it
Tenet 19, 3t,. See also Feedback
Tenet 20, 3t, 23, 24, 33, 34, 38.
See also Relevant and
meaningful contexts
Tenet 21, 3t, 16, 41, 75. See also
Novelty and patterns
Tenets of Mind, Brain, and
Education science, 1f, 3t, 4,
7t, 8, 76f
Textbooks, xiv, xv, xvi, 10, 42,
47, 77
The brain adapts to what it does
most (Mantra), 7t, 18, 20,
22, 26
The brain can’t let it go
(communication
immediacy smooths the
flow of learning processes)
(Mantra), 7t, 39
The more you know the more
you can know (Mantra), 7t,
24, 33
Theory of Mind, 7t, 18, 36, 85
The person who does the work
is the person who does the
learning (Mantra), 7t, 23,
33
There are many paths to Rome
(Mantra), 7t, 33
There is a natural hierarchy
and learning trajectory
for each subject (Mantra),
7t, 32
There is no cognition without
emotion (Mantra), 4, 7t,
25, 32, 34, 35
The whole is greater than the
sum of the parts (Mantra),
xiii, 7, 7t, 28, 37, 82
Think, pair, share, 5. See also
Thinking Routines, Harvard
Project Zero
Thinking Routines, Harvard
Project Zero, 5, 6, 46
Time is more important than
space, 63
Timed exams, xv
To know is not enough, 4
TPACK (technological,
pedagogical, and content
knowledge), xvii, xviii
Transdisciplinary thinking
(Pedagogy), xiv, 1, 7t, 33,
37, 82
Treating everyone fairly does
not mean treating them
equally (Mantra), 7t
Trial and error, 29
Unconscious processes (Tenet),
3t, 7t, 17, 18, 19f, 36
Understanding by Design, xiv, 5,
16, 33, 42, 43, 45f, 55, 57f,
63f, 75
UNESCO, viii, xvii
Uniqueness (Principle), 2t, 7t, 9,
11, 33
United States National Taskforce
on Universal Design for
Learning, 10
Universal Design for Learning
(UDL) (Pedagogy), 7t, 9,
10, 53, 86
Use it or lose it (Tenet), 3t, 7t, 24
Video conferencing, 34, 35, 38,
47f, 54, 55, 64, 65f, 67, 71t,
81
Video recording, 16, 47f, 64, 84,
86
Voice
explicitly teach emotional
cues from (Tenet), 3t, 7t
36
inner, 15, 20, 25,
student, 38, 80, 81
to text, 53
tones of, 36
Webinar, xiii, 54, 65f, Appendix
B
We know ourselves better by
knowing “the other”
(Mantra), 7t, 18, 36
Wellness checks, 28, 39
What can I do better the next
time? xviii, 7t, 15, 35.
See also Feedforward
Whole-child approach, xvi, 6, 7t
12, 28, 29
Worked examples, 13t, 42
Working memory (See also
Memory), xiii, 21, 25
Year-round calendar, x, 6, 61,
62f, 71t, 84
Yerkes-Dodson curve, 30, 30f,
31, 58
You are more than the sum of
your genes and zip code, 7t,
27
You can’t teach students if you
don’t know them (Mantra),
7t, 39
Zoom, xv, 23, 34, 35, 38, 47f,
56f, 65, 86
fatigue, xiv
 About the Author
Tracey Tokuhama-­Espinosa, PhD, is a professor at the
Harvard University Extension School and has taught
The Neuroscience of Learning: An Introduction to Mind,
Brain, Health and Education for the past 6 years in a
100% online, flipped classroom with a synchronous
weekly meeting time. She is author of Neuromyths:
Debunking False Ideas About the Brain (2019); Five Pillars
110
of the Mind: Redesigning Education to Suit the Brain (2018);
Making Classrooms Better: 50 Practical Applications of Mind,
Brain, and Education Science (2014); The New Science of
Teaching and Learning (2010); The Multilingual Mind:
Questions By, For, and About P ­ eople Living with Many
Languages (2008); and Raising Multilingual ­ Children:
Foreign Language Acquisition (2001).