Why Don't Students Like School?: A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions About How the Mind Works and What It Means for the Classroom

By Daniel T. Willingham. 2009

369 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/678a77dc66b4a1b7d8aaf0a9d07b08b3d9f8d150

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

1. P. Cantor
2. D. Osher
3. Juliette Berg
4. Lily Steyer
5. T. Rose
6. P. Agarwal
7. Jeffrey Albrecht
8. Amanda Kenyon

Citations in the corpus

• Student-centered Education and Constructivism: Challenges, Concerns, and Clarity for Teachers (2016, background): “Additionally, Daniel T. Willingham (2009) presents a series of challenges including the simple principle that “memory is the residue of thought” that should call for reflection in all teachers.”
• Malleability, plasticity, and individuality: How children learn and develop in context1 (2019, background): “…drawing upon what is already stored in long-term memory— can enable the student to achieve greater fluency in the present, free up working memory, provide an enriched base for future learning, and accelerate developmental range and the path to mastery (Schwartz et al., 2016; Willingham, 2009).”
• Relevance for Learning and Motivation in Education (2018, background): “…attempts to apply these interventions in different contexts have produced null and even negative results (Albrecht & Karabenick, 2017), even leading some to categorically state that “trying to make the [instructional] material relevant to students’ interests doesn’t work” (Willingham, 2009, p. 63).”
• Retrieval Practice & Bloom’s Taxonomy: Do Students Need Fact Knowledge Before Higher Order Learning? (2019, background): “Note that Willingham (2009) also distinguished between rote knowledge and integrated or connected knowledge, the latter of which may be required for higher order learning (see also Ausubel, 1961/1965; Ausubel, Novak, & Hanesian, 1978).”
• Learning Styles (2008, unknown): “Our conclusion reinforces other recent skeptical commentary on the topic (e.g., Coffield et al., 2004; Curry, 1990; Willingham, 2005, 2009).”
• Technology-Enhanced Assessment of Math Fact Automaticity (2012, background): “The prevailing definition of math fact automaticity is the ability to deliver a correct answer immediately from memory without conscious thought, as opposed to relying on a calculation (Bloom, 1986; Logan, 1988; Willingham, 2009).”
• Parsing the Practice of Teaching (2016, background): “One is that, to retain what they are learning, students need to actually understand it (Bransford, Brophy, & Williams, 2000) and, to understand it, they need to actively think about it (Willingham, 2009).”