While science has made incredible gains in understanding how we learn, schools have not adopted these findings on a large scale. Shockingly, this appears to be particularly true in the United States, where nearly 80% of teachers voice belief in the disproven concept of learning styles, which directly contradicts what we know about the brain (Newton & Salvi, 2020). Conversely, when we look at the evidence-based strategy of retrieval practice for remembering concepts, studies show only 31% of American preservice teachers correctly identified the strategy as effective (Boser, 2019), while nearly all teachers in England use it regularly and more than 62% use it every day (Bates & Shea, 2024).

This is not the teachers’ fault. Their training in the science of learning has been woefully inadequate. Not too long ago, U.S. federal researchers reviewed 48 of the most popular textbooks used in teacher education and found none contained adequate explanations of the fundamental strategies of how we learn (Pomerance et al., 2016).

How do we begin to right this ship? We have to start by building buy-in among teachers. As both a district coach and school principal, I’ve worked to introduce the ideas of the science of learning to school faculties in a way that’s supportive, effective, and — most importantly — nonthreatening. Based on this experience, this article presents three entry points for school and professional learning leaders to introduce the science of learning to teachers and staff. They are all grounded in a commitment to shared learning and collaborative inquiry.

Collaborative inquiry

As change theorist Robert Evans (1996) memorably wrote, “One cannot hope to implement change without persuading people that it is necessary” (p.55). Veteran teachers are often cynical, with good reason. They have seen the next big thing in education come and go in regular cycles. I am only half-joking when I say that teachers’ first day back every September is typically dedicated to whatever the administrators read that summer. Anthony Bryk and colleagues (2015) coined the term “solutionitis” to refer to schools’ tendency to churn through innovations quickly and unthoughtfully. If the science of learning is similarly presented as the next big buzzword, it will face a similarly chilly reception.

Alternatively, entry points into the science of learning must be rooted in collaborative inquiry, as outlined in Learning Forward’s (2025) Standards for Professional Learning. The sense that we as a community need to collectively wrestle with these ideas is crucial for both initial teacher buy-in and staying power.

As school leaders, we must approach the task of introducing learning science with humility. We should be careful not to present it in the guise of this year’s initiative or as new knowledge that the administration will now bestow upon the faculty. We should acknowledge that we weren’t trained in these ideas either, and that we are all going through a process of growth. In fact, I find it effective to point out where I myself have been ignorant of the science — for example, I am guilty of running full training sessions on learning styles back in the day — and how I have had to change my practice over time.

With this humility and commitment to growing together, we will be prepared to choose entry points to help our colleagues better understand the science of learning.  

Entry point 1: The learning business

One of the simplest and most effective entry points is to pose the very basic question, “How do we learn?” The question is so fundamental that it typically stops groups in their tracks and piques their interest in learning science.

In a whole-group setting, teachers might complete a brief journaling exercise on this question, followed by a turn-and-talk with peers. I find typical answers involve the words “engagement” and “relevance”; teachers say students learn when they see value in the content or when they have positive relationships and a sense of belonging.

After some conversation and sharing of responses, I prime groups to go deeper in discussing how cognitive science defines learning. I point out that none of the answers they gave are wrong, but they are incomplete; learning science adds another facet to this explanation. Sure, students learn better when they feel safe, I say, but there is more, adding, “Did you know learning science has made great gains over the last 30 years, adding to our understanding of what learning is and how it happens?”

Confronted with the reality that we are in the learning business with an insufficient understanding of what learning is and how it happens, teachers often want to know more. Unpacking Daniel Willingham’s (2021) simple model of memory is often a seamless next step. His model, particularly as depicted by Oliver Caviglioli in the figure on page 30, is an accessible tool for understanding how cognitive scientists represent learning as a change in long-term memory. This, in turn, opens the door to a multitude of pathways for school faculty to explore within the research on learning science.

This entry point takes a “yes, and” rather than a “no, you are wrong” approach. There is, after all, no one universal definition of learning (Willingham, 2017). We’re not negating teachers’ beliefs about learning but rather creating space to add to them. This is essential for buy-in. 

Entry point 2: Scenarios

Another effective entry point is discussing teaching scenarios. Teachers review two different versions of a classroom lesson and discuss which option is most effective. The box on page 31 presents one such example of a scenario to spark discussion about retrieval practice. Teachers begin by spending a few moments individually contemplating the scenario before sharing thoughts with those around them. The presenter then gives the correct answer, which in this case is the approach used by Teacher A.

I recommend repeating the process with one or two subsequent scenarios. After a few scenarios, the group will likely be interested in learning more about the research behind the more effective responses.

It is almost impossible for teachers not to think of their own practice when considering these scenarios. This opens an opportunity for the facilitator to explain the connections among the science of learning, the scenarios, and the teachers’ practices. Next steps, depending on context, might include short readings or video examples demonstrating a concept in the scenarios, such as retrieval practice.

Many teachers may already have a sense that there is more out there, based on recent exposures to the science of reading. Researcher and writer Barbara Oakley (2026) suggests conversations around scenarios like these can be the first step towards rooting all instructional decisions in proven scientific concepts.

Entry point 3: Start with a small group

In some schools, starting paradigm-shifting conversations with the whole faculty at once might be a bridge too far. The staff as a whole might not be ready to trust that this is not simply the next temporary innovation. Alternatively, school leaders might convene a small group of teachers — a coalition of the willing — to formally begin exploring the science of learning.

Both Evans (1996) and Michael Fullan (2006) agree the success of a small group’s work hinges on learning in the context of what works for teachers’ specific schools and classrooms. I find small groups learn a great deal by reading and discussing high-quality resources about learning sciences. I have seen schools have success using Daniel Willingham’s (2021) Why Don’t Students Like School? which does an excellent job of connecting the theories of learning science to teacher practice, and Pooja Agarwal and Patrice Bains’ (2019) Powerful Teaching, which teachers find extremely practical and accessible. Groups not inclined to study a whole book have successfully used Barak Rosenshine’s 2012 article “Principles of Instruction,” which succinctly spells out key practices of the most effective teachers, all of which are rooted in cognitive science.

After reading and discussing the ideas in these publications in the small group, educators should experiment with the ideas in their classrooms and report back to the group. This collective inquiry, in which teachers begin to see the applicable value of these ideas in their own classrooms, can set the stage for the subsequent spreading of the concepts across the faculty.

A slow, sustained process

The three entry points described here are neither sequential nor mutually exclusive. Depending on context, some schools might just use one while others use a version of all three. The key is an awareness that change must be a sensitive, long-term process that respects teachers’ experiences and seeks to augment them. A culture of collaborative inquiry requires faculty members unfamiliar with these ideas to have time, patience, and multiple opportunities to absorb the concepts and inform their practice. These entry points are simply the first step in a multiyear effort to understand the science of learning’s potential to refine instructional practice and achieve greater results for student learning.

Download pdf here.