CPD in 5
Posts
Cognitive Science is Trending. But What If You’re Not a Cognitive Scientist?

Cognitive Science is Trending. But What If You’re Not a Cognitive Scientist?

Steve White
June 08, 2025

Walk into any staffroom or scroll through teacher Twitter these days, and you’ll likely hear terms like “retrieval practice,” “cognitive load,” or “spaced learning.” Cognitive science – essentially the study of how we think and learn – is everywhere in UK education right now. It’s been a buzzword in training sessions, built into government frameworks, and touted as the key to evidence-informed teaching. But if you’re a busy classroom teacher (and not a cognitive scientist), this trend can feel equal parts exciting and overwhelming. What exactly is cognitive science, why has it become so influential, and how can you apply its insights without needing a PhD? In this post, I’ll break down the hype and the reality – in plain English – to show that any teacher can use cognitive science principles effectively. I’ll also offer a balanced take: cognitive science brings powerful tools to teaching, but it’s not magic, and there are pitfalls if it’s misapplied. By the end, you should feel informed and empowered to dip into the world of cognitive science with confidence.

What Is Cognitive Science and Why Is It Influencing Education?

At its core, cognitive science is the interdisciplinary study of the mind: how we think, learn, remember, and solve problems . In an education context, cognitive science usually refers to research (often from psychology and neuroscience) into how students learn and how memory works – for example, studies on working memory, long-term memory, attention, and learning strategies. Over decades, this “science of learning” has uncovered some consistent principles about how people absorb and retain information . Crucially, these findings have practical implications for teaching methods. In fact, cognitive science insights have “influenced education practice in schools – and dominated discussions and debate around teaching and learning” in recent years .

So, why has cognitive science become the hot topic in UK education? The rise of the evidence-informed teaching movement over the last 10–15 years is a big part of the story. Educators and policymakers have been keen to move beyond fads and guru theories, and instead anchor teaching in approaches proven by research. Cognitive science has provided exactly that: a research-backed understanding of learning. This marks a paradigm shift from some past trends – for instance, the early 2000s’ enthusiasm for “learning styles” now looks flimsy, and cognitive science has stepped in with more robust guidance . According to a major 2021 evidence review by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF), “cognitive science is being used increasingly to inform interventions, practice, and policy in education”, especially research on “working memory, long-term memory, and cognitive load.” In other words, ideas from cognitive science are not only popular – they’ve become mainstream and even embedded in policy.

For example, the EEF review found that over 85% of surveyed teachers said cognitive science strategies were central to their teaching approach. No surprise, then, that the government’s Early Career Framework (ECF) – the training curriculum for new teachers in England – now explicitly includes cognitive science principles like memory and cognitive load theory. Even Ofsted’s inspection framework has drawn on cognitive science (highlighting techniques like spaced practice as effective for learning) . In short, cognitive science has gone from the research lab to the classroom: it’s shaping how teachers are trained and how lessons are designed across the UK. This momentum isn’t just a fad; as one research school put it, “many [are] articulating that ‘cognitive science is the future’” of education.

But let’s demystify it a bit. What are these cognitive science principles making waves? And do you really need to delve into academic journals to use them? The good news is cognitive science largely boils down to a few key ideas about how memory and learning operate – and many of them feel like common sense once understood.

Key Cognitive Science Principles (Made Simple)

You don’t need to be a scientist to grasp the core strategies that cognitive science research recommends. In fact, many teachers already use these intuitively. Here are five of the most influential principles, explained in plain language with real-world classroom examples:

Spaced Practice: Rather than cramming learning into one session, spread out review and practice of material over time. This gives students repeated chances to revisit knowledge, strengthening it in long-term memory. Example: A primary teacher might revisit key maths skills for 5 minutes at the start of each lesson throughout the term, ensuring topics from earlier weeks aren’t forgotten. Similarly, a secondary history teacher might intersperse brief review quizzes on past units every few lessons instead of only revising right before exams – a practical use of spacing that research shows leads to better retention than last-minute cramming.
Interleaving: Don’t always teach in isolated blocks. Instead, mix up different types of problems or topics in practice sessions. This helps students learn to discriminate between concepts and apply the right approach in the right context. Example: In GCSE Maths, rather than doing 30 algebra problems in one go then 30 geometry problems later, a teacher gives a problem set that alternates between algebra and geometry questions. Students can’t just rely on rote method; they have to think “Which method does this problem need?” – which improves flexibility and understanding. Likewise, a science teacher might cycle through questions on electricity, forces, and energy in one homework. It may feel more challenging for students at first (since the brain must reset for each switch), but that desirable difficulty often leads to stronger learning in the long run.
Retrieval Practice: This is a fancy term for “learning by actively recalling information.” Essentially, have students pull knowledge out of their memory often – through low-stakes quizzes, flashcards, or even by just explaining what they learned – rather than only reviewing notes or listening passively. The act of retrieval itself solidifies learning. Example: A modern languages teacher might start each class with a quick quiz, asking students to translate five words or phrases covered last week. Or you could do a “brain dump” – ask pupils to write down everything they remember about last term’s topic with books closed. One school coined “Throwback Thursday” quizzes that include questions from last week, last term, and even last year , to continually exercise older knowledge. Students might groan at the pop quizzes, but research shows this effort to recall information boosts long-term retention far more than just re-reading notes. The key is keeping it low-stakes (no big grades attached) so that retrieval practice is about memory strengthening, not stress.
Managing Cognitive Load: Cognitive load theory reminds us that students (and all of us) have limited “working memory” capacity – we can only juggle a few bits of new information at once. If we overwhelm students with too much at once, learning suffers. The practical strategies here involve breaking content into manageable chunks, scaffolding complex tasks, and focusing attention on the essential material. Example: When teaching a multi-step process like long division or essay writing, a teacher might demonstrate it in stages – first modeling one step at a time, using “worked examples” to show how it’s done, and giving students guided practice on each part before expecting them to do the whole task . Non-essential information is pared back; if a concept is especially tricky, the teacher might use visual aids or sentence starters to scaffold understanding. By being mindful of cognitive load, we avoid overloading students’ mental bandwidth. As a result, more new information gets encoded into memory rather than lost because “the lesson went too fast” or had too many distractions. Every teacher has likely seen that glazed look when we try to cover way too much new content at once – managing cognitive load helps prevent that.
Dual Coding: This principle involves combining words and visuals to enhance learning. The idea is that presenting information in both verbal (spoken or written) form and visual form (a picture, diagram, timeline, etc.) can make learning more efficient, because it engages two pathways in the brain. Example: In English literature, a teacher might show a timeline graphic of Shakespeare’s life while describing it, so students form a mental image to go with the facts. In geography, when learning about a water cycle, pairing the explanation with a clear diagram of the cycle means students aren’t relying on words alone . Dual coding in practice can be as simple as adding a relevant image to reinforce a concept, or using an infographic. Important caveat: The visual must be directly related and meaningful – e.g. a labeled diagram or icon – not just clipart for decoration. (In fact, the EEF warns that some teachers misinterpreted “dual coding” and started adding irrelevant pictures to slides, which distracted students more than it helped . So it’s always words + meaningful visuals, aligned together.)

These five concepts – often cited as the “big hitters” of classroom cognitive science – are already changing teaching for the better. They give a common language for practices that help students store information more durably and access it more easily when needed. And as you can see, none of them require an extensive science background to grasp. They’re essentially good teaching tactics informed by how memory works. As Professor Barak Rosenshine (whose famous “Principles of Instruction” synthesise much of this research) put it, these strategies stem from both cognitive science and what effective teachers have done for years .

The takeaway for a non-scientist teacher: by understanding the gist of these principles, you can make small, impactful tweaks to your classroom practice. You might turn an existing end-of-unit test into smaller weekly quizzes (retrieval + spacing), or redesign a powerpoint so each slide introduces just one idea with a pertinent image (cognitive load + dual coding). You might intersperse old topics into your starters (interleaving) or simply give kids more pauses to recap key points. These are not expensive interventions or huge curriculum overhauls – they’re tweaks to how we teach that flow naturally from knowing a bit about how students learn. And far from adding to your workload, many teachers find that applying these principles makes teaching easier: you spend less time re-teaching forgotten material, and more time building on solid foundations.

Why Cognitive Science Appeals: Strengths and Benefits for Teachers

Cognitive science wouldn’t be “trending” if it didn’t promise real benefits. Advocates often highlight that it gives teachers an evidence-based answer to the question “How do students learn best?”, allowing us to cut through folk wisdom and focus on what truly helps learning. Here are some of the key strengths of bringing cognitive science into the classroom:

It’s grounded in research on learning and memory. Cognitive science offers a reassuringly solid foundation – decades of lab and classroom studies – that explains why certain teaching techniques work. For instance, why do we see better exam performance when we include regular review in lessons? Because of the spacing effect, well documented in cognitive psychology . Why is it helpful to model a math problem before letting students try? Cognitive load theory illuminates how guidance prevents overload . This grounding in research gives teachers confidence that these strategies aren’t just trendy – they’re rooted in how the brain naturally functions. As Dr. Thomas Perry (lead author of the EEF review) noted, cognitive science principles provide “a good explanation for changes in learning rates” and have the expected positive effects when tested . In short, it works, and we have data to back it.
It can improve students’ retention of knowledge. Perhaps the biggest immediate payoff is in students remembering more of what we teach. By applying strategies like retrieval practice and spaced repetition, teachers report that pupils can recall facts and concepts more readily when needed. This stronger recall means lessons build more securely on prior knowledge (less “starting from scratch” each term). Over time, better retention can translate into improved understanding (because students have the building blocks at hand) and improved results on assessments. For example, one UK school implementing cognitive science techniques found that focusing on moving knowledge into long-term memory had a “beneficial impact on their learning progress.” When students constantly exercise past material, the cumulative knowledge base they develop can be game-changing – especially in content-heavy curricula. It’s not about rote memorisation for its own sake; it’s about freeing up mental capacity. If basic information is locked in long-term memory, students’ working memory is freed to tackle higher-order tasks like analysis and problem-solving . In essence, cognitive science strategies help clear the “mental clutter” that slows learning down.
It validates effective traditional practices (and challenges less effective ones). Another interesting aspect is that cognitive science hasn’t so much invented brand-new teaching methods as it has uplifted certain classic approaches. For instance, explicit instruction and regular review – hallmarks of many successful teachers – align perfectly with cognitive science findings on how guidance and practice strengthen learning . Cognitive science has given a scientific “seal of approval” to strategies like quizzing, modeling, and scaffolding, which makes it easier for teachers to justify and refine these techniques. At the same time, it has helped debunk approaches that don’t hold up to scrutiny (e.g., the myth that teaching to “learning styles” improves learning – cognitive research shows it doesn’t). By filtering out strategies that feel nice but don’t actually boost learning, teachers can focus their precious time on what works. In a way, cognitive science has been empowering: it affirms professional instincts (like the importance of practice and clarity) with evidence, and gives cover to politely ditch gimmicks that don’t pay off.
It encourages reflective practice and professional growth. Many teachers describe the process of learning about cognitive science as invigorating. It’s like getting a peek “under the hood” of learning – understanding why some lessons soar and others flop. This knowledge can make lesson planning more intentional. You start asking: “Am I overloading my students with too much info at once? Could I get them to recall last month’s material to reinforce it?” Such reflective questions make us more thoughtful educators. Schools that embrace cognitive science often develop a culture of experimenting and sharing (“I tried spacing my homework tasks, and here’s what I found…”). It’s evidence-informed CPD that respects teachers’ intellect: you’re engaging with research and then applying professional judgement to implement it. Crucially, cognitive science doesn’t replace the art of teaching – it informs it. As the EEF’s cognitive science specialist noted, teacher judgement is key to unlocking these strategies’ potential in practice . This collaboration between research and classroom know-how is a win-win for professional practice.
It can boost student metacognition and motivation. Interestingly, when teachers share a bit of cognitive science with students, it can help students take ownership of their learning. For example, explaining to pupils that “quizzing yourself helps you learn better than re-reading” or that “if you forget something, it’s not because you’re dumb – it’s how memory works and you can improve it” can motivate them to use these strategies in revision . Some teachers hold mini-lessons on the brain or memory, which students actually find fascinating and empowering. Knowing why you’re doing those flashcards or mind maps gives a sense of purpose. In short, cognitive science principles, when shared appropriately, can cultivate more self-aware, independent learners who use techniques like spacing and retrieval on their own. That’s a big long-term benefit for study skills and lifelong learning.

All these strengths explain why cognitive science has been embraced widely. As one commentator put it, cognitive science as pedagogy has become almost “quasi-official” – it’s now our dominant paradigm . However, with great popularity comes great responsibility. It’s important to approach this trend with a critical eye and avoid the traps of oversimplification. So let’s turn to the other side of the coin: what can go wrong when cognitive science is misapplied or misunderstood?

Pitfalls and Myths: Avoiding the “Cargo-Cult” of Cognitive Science

Like any educational trend, cognitive science can be misunderstood or carried to unhelpful extremes. No busy teacher wants to jump on another bandwagon only to find it was oversold. Here are some common pitfalls and misconceptions to be mindful of, so you can reap the benefits of cognitive science without the drawbacks:

Beware the “one-size-fits-all” mandate. It’s easy for schools to hear about a great research-backed strategy and then insist everyone do it every single lesson – whether it fits or not. This can turn a good idea into a box-ticking exercise. For example, retrieval practice is powerful, but it doesn’t mean literally every lesson in every subject must start with a quiz. Two education researchers warn against making any strategy a rigid rule, noting “the dangers of creating a rule to apply every single time”. Classrooms vary by subject, age, and context – what retrieval practice looks like in Maths might differ from History. Cognitive science works best when teachers apply its principles flexibly and thoughtfully. Use retrieval or dual coding when it serves the learning goal, not just to comply with a policy. In short, don’t let a helpful strategy ossify into a joyless routine that ignores the nuances of your subject.
Mind the “lethal mutations.” This colorful term (coined by educator Dylan Wiliam) describes how well-intended ideas can morph into ineffective practices as they spread. In the case of cognitive science, some strategies have suffered from misinterpretation in classrooms . We mentioned one: dual coding turning into slapping random clipart on slides – which actually harms learning by distracting students. Another example: “spaced learning” was sometimes misconstrued as doing a fun activity for 10 minutes, then something unrelated, then coming back (an approach popularised in one early interpretation, but not really what the research says). To avoid mutations, always go back to the core principle and ask: How is this strategy supposed to benefit learning? If an implementation isn’t clearly doing that, it might be off-base. It’s perfectly fine to simplify language for the classroom – you don’t need to say “cognitive load” to students – but be cautious simplifying the practice itself beyond recognition. If you’re unsure, trusted summaries (see Further Reading below) can help clarify the do’s and don’ts of each strategy.
Not everything has been proven for all contexts. Cognitive science gives us general principles, but applying them in the real world of messy classrooms isn’t always straightforward. The EEF’s review emphasized that the evidence for how these principles work in everyday classroom conditions is still limited in some areas, with gaps across different subjects and age groups . Many studies were done in labs or in controlled settings with older students, so we should be cautious about over-generalizing. For instance, lots of retrieval practice research uses simple rote material (like word pairs); does it equally enhance complex skills like essay writing? The jury is still out . Early years teachers also ask how techniques geared toward fact-heavy secondary subjects translate to learning through play. If someone claims cognitive science has all the classroom answers, remember that education is complex. As Dr. Perry advises, “we should take care about universalising these principles” given the current research gaps . Use professional judgement and observe the impact in your context. Cognitive science is extremely useful, but it’s not a formula that guarantees success in every scenario – you’ll still need to adapt and sometimes experiment to see what works for your pupils.
Students are not machines – don’t ignore the human element. One criticism is that some presentations of cognitive science can sound very mechanistic: students become “information processors” and teachers the deliverers of knowledge to be drilled. Taken to an extreme, this viewpoint could neglect the emotional and social aspects of learning. As one research director noted, there’s a risk of believing “students are empty vessels that need to be filled with knowledge to pass a test” . But real children have varying motivations, feelings, and contexts that hugely affect their learning. Cognitive science itself does study these factors (there’s research on how anxiety impacts cognitive load, for example ), but these nuances sometimes get lost in translation. So, while you use spacing and interleaving, remember that relationships, inspiration, and student well-being matter too. A great teacher still connects with their class, uses storytelling, sparks curiosity – none of which contradicts cognitive science. In fact, good cognitive science-informed teaching frees up time and mental space for richer discussions and creative activities by ensuring foundational knowledge is secure . The key is balance. Don’t let the scientific tone make your teaching robotic; use it to enhance your craft. And be mindful of individual differences: strategies might need tweaking for pupils with special educational needs, for example, or those who are very anxious or lacking prior knowledge.
No silver bullets: Finally, guard against the hope that cognitive science is the magic solution to every teaching challenge. It’s a powerful tool, yes, but it’s not the only tool. If we ever catch ourselves thinking “This will solve all our problems,” that’s a red flag. As one trainer quipped, “Any time you think any single thing is going to solve all your problems, you’ve created a new problem for yourself.” Education is too nuanced for one approach to be a panacea. For instance, while retrieval practice can dramatically improve recall, it won’t automatically foster higher-order skills like creativity or critical thinking – those need other approaches too. Cognitive load theory helps with initial instruction, but later on, productive struggle and challenge are necessary for growth. So, see cognitive science as part of a balanced diet in teaching. It should complement (not replace) pedagogical content knowledge, creativity, empathy, and all the other ingredients of great teaching.

By keeping these cautions in mind, you can avoid the common missteps. Remember that the spirit of evidence-informed practice is not about mindless compliance to research – it’s about being informed and then making expert decisions for your context . Cognitive science should empower teachers, not constrain them. When used thoughtfully, it’s a fantastic asset; when used unthinkingly, it can become just another fleeting craze or even do harm. The fact that you’re reading this shows you’re taking an informed, critical approach – exactly what we need to make the most of what cognitive science offers.

Bringing Cognitive Science into Your Classroom: A Balanced Approach

If you’ve made it this far, you’ve gained a solid understanding of why cognitive science is such a big deal in UK education and how it can help (or potentially hinder) classroom practice. So, what’s the bottom line for a non-cognitive-scientist teacher?

Firstly, don’t be intimidated by the terminology. Yes, phrases like “dual coding” or “distributed practice” might sound technical, but behind each is a simple, actionable idea that likely aligns with things you already do. You don’t need to memorize researchers’ names or dive into brain scans to use these strategies. It’s perfectly fine to know just enough science to apply it. For example, you might remember “Working memory is limited, so I should avoid cramming too much into one lesson” – that alone is you applying cognitive science! Think of these principles as friendly guides in lesson design, not rigid rules or abstract theories.

Secondly, embrace the mindset of a teacher-scientist – not in the sense of doing experiments in a lab, but in being curious about what works for your pupils. Cognitive science gives us a starting point of “best bets” that tend to work for most people . Use those best bets as a baseline (e.g. it’s a safe bet that spacing works better than cramming, for pretty much all learners ). Then, observe and tweak in your own classroom. For instance, you might find your students respond really well to retrieval practice via games, but less so to flashcards – so you adapt the method to keep engagement high. As history teacher Harry Fletcher-Wood points out, we often can’t wait for perfect, subject-specific RCTs for every technique; we have to “make an educated, informed decision… based on the evidence” we have and then refine from there. Trust your professional instincts alongside the research.

Finally, keep the balance and don’t lose the joy. Cognitive science is there to serve your teaching, not to stifle it. Use it to enhance your explanations, to plan reviews that cut down forgetting, to scaffold difficult material – and also continue to bring your passion, creativity, and personal style to the classroom. A teacher armed with both evidence-based strategies and a caring, adaptable approach is a formidable force for learning. One without the other, not so much. So celebrate the fact that we live in an age where science can support the art of teaching. Take the nuggets of cognitive science that make sense to you, try them out, and share with colleagues. If something doesn’t seem to work as advertised, dig a bit deeper or discuss with peers (maybe the strategy needs a tweak, or maybe your context is different – both outcomes are okay!).

In summary, cognitive science has a lot to offer and it’s here to stay in education. You don’t need to be a cognitive scientist to use it well – you just need to be an attentive teacher. By understanding the basics of how your students learn, you can make informed tweaks that might just save you time (and headaches) in the long run. Equally, by being aware of the limitations, you ensure you’re using these tools wisely rather than as dogma. As with all good teaching, it comes down to knowing your students, staying curious, and being willing to learn and adjust.

So go ahead and borrow from the brain scientists – your classroom likely won’t turn into a research lab, but it just might become a place where students learn a bit more efficiently and confidently. And that’s a trend worth embracing.