Some related questions, if I may, regarding the retrieval study:
1. I was surprised to see you write that note-taking is a good strategy for studying. I'm not an expert, but most of the research I've read puts this as a quite weak form of study (which makes sense: it's passive)
2. Re "only superior when feedback was provided": This is essentially flashcards, right? As in, with a typical exam/quiz the student will either not find out the answers, or have to wait considerable time. Of course with flashcards, it is provided instantly. If they answer incorrectly, it simply remains in the session's deck.
3. Aren't methods such as "group discussions" or "self-explanations" etc also forms of retrieval? This is something I've had a few discussions with people over and I've never really followed how such methods can not be based upon retrieving from memory.
1. Yes you’re right that traditional note-taking, especially verbatim or unguided, is usually classed as a weak learning technique, but this study included studies comparing retrieval practice not just to rereading, but also to active elaborative strategies, and note-taking was among them. (I'd also add that the Cornell notes method for example, can be very cognitively demanding.)
2. Yes precisely. The authors found that retrieval only beat elaborative strategies when feedback was given (g = 0.50 with feedback, versus g = –0.14 without)
3. Yes good point, and the authors acknowledge this point. Elaborative strategies often contain retrieval-like components. But they differ in emphasis. Retrieval practice tasks are designed to cue recall directly (e.g., free or cued recall), whereas elaborative tasks (like group discussion or self-explanation) emphasise integration and reorganisation of knowledge rather than the accuracy of recall.
Given all this, can I ask what your stance is on flashcards? Of course I'm biased, but I'm fascinated by them for multiple reasons - not least of which is how effective they are relative to how little they're utilised.
I was speaking to a couple teachers from the SSC's blog re this. One of them said that they simply were not aware of just how much research there is on this (recall, spacing, flashcards etc), and another said that whilst they *did* remember such terms from their degree days, they:
1) Never/Doesn't really take them seriously
2) Would be worried that the increased difficulty of them (which I tried to explain was a feature and not a bug that the students should be informed of) would lead to increased stress for the students.
This seems bad. And it generally reflects my experience (or lack thereof) from my school days when they were not a thing *at all* (I'm 26, left school at 16).
It's telling that the GEEAP paper talks a lot about cost effectiveness, and not about devoting more resources to ameliorate this supposed international crisis.
Also, with their recommendations on micromanaging reading instruction, they seem to completely ignore a century-old body of eye-movement research:
"Research on eye movement in reading has shown that reading comprehension is optimal if the reading materials are natural and close to the reader’s cognitive and life experiences. Moreover, readers should be taught to use the information from different textual, nonverbal visual features, and multiple representations and modes to assist comprehension. Comprehension is also optimal if reading instruction is embedded in a wide cross-disciplinary curriculum through which students build up general and specific background knowledge for reading and learning. In the continuous conversations about reading and reading instruction, let’s not forget these very principle understandings about reading and how students read most successfully based on the body of century-old eye movement research."
Hung, Y. - N. (2021). The science of reading: The eyes cannot lie. International journal of education and literacy studies, 9(4), p. 26-31.
Thank you Carl - any chance you can tell me title of the SEL research as when I click on the link it takes me to generic search and would like to read in more detail. Sorry if it’s there but I’m not seeing it properly
With all due respect to the organizations that authored the GEEAP report, I believe that their findings should be taken with more than just a grain of salt. I have several for drawing this conclusion, but first and foremost is credible research from my highly respected colleague Jim Cummins, Professor Emerita from the University of Toronto. Professor Cummins has conducted extensive research as described in the quotation I post here below. Cummins concludes that the factor of literacy engagement is the strongest variable associated with low reading achievement among minority groups worldwide.
The construct of literacy engagement incorporates notions of time on task (reading and writing extensively), affect (enthusiasm and enjoyment of literacy), depth of cognitive processing (strategies to deepen comprehension), and active pursuit of literacy activities (amount and diversity of literacy practices in and out of school. Cummins (2022) cites 20 years of studies from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) that document how students whose family background was characterized by low income and low education, but who were highly engaged readers, substantially outscored students who came from backgrounds with higher education and higher income, but who themselves were less engaged readers. Based on a massive sample, this finding suggests the stunning conclusion that engaged reading can overcome traditional barriers to reading achievement, including gender, parental education, and income.
Cummins, J. (2021). Rethinking the education of multilingual learners: A critical analysis of theoretical concepts. Multilingual Matters.
Direct Quotations From Cummins (2021)
"The lower reading performance of students from socially disadvantaged backgrounds in comparison to their higher-SES peers can be attributed to the fact that many students from lower-income communities have significantly less access to print in their schools, homes, and neighborhoods than is the case in middle-income communities … In comparison to more affluent families, parents living in poverty don’t have the money to buy books, or other cultural resources, such as iPads, smartphones and computers, for their children….In short, there is an opportunity gap with respect to print access that has not been addressed by schools in most countries." (p. 97)
My advice to literacy researchers and educators is that we examine research from many different legitimate and credible sources for evidence of ways to address global inequities in literacy education.
It's very interesting that the study lists "language" as one of the six "skills" needed for teaching reading. If this is the case, then why is "whole language" rather than partial language or fragmented language or decontextualized language not the preferred way of teaching the "skill" of language?
Hi Carl - you are a TRUE EVIDENCE-BASED Research CHAMPION!
I am in awe as to how you keep "on top of this enormous cache" of research that is published every month!!
Thanks for an AMAZING post again - which i have skimmed through, and forwarded to some colleagues... I will re-read with GREAT interest and use your links as starting points to deepen my learning! THANKS again - your efforts to improve learning broadly and sharing so widely are much appreciated! best always, Gail
Surprise! The narrowed "Science of Reading" (SoR) doesn't live up to its equity claims.
"These findings highlight a persistent disconnect between SoR's equity claims and its research base, underscoring the need to integrate transformative justice approaches so that equity efforts move beyond access and opportunity toward systemic change in literacy development."
Elzy-Palmer, J., A. Babino, and T. Hubbard. 2025. “Dimensions of Equity in the Science of Reading Research: A Systematic Review of Actual, Artificial, and Absent Up-Takes of Equity.” Reading Research Quarterly 60, no. 4: e70070. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.70070.
As usual, very interesting reading. I have a few questions. I'll be brief.
as for AoA and word meaning fluctuation, one might say it's sort of obvious: kids learn basic words with common, undisputed meaning first: dad, mom, bread, school, street, park. Words referring to more complex situations where meanings can shift come later: democracy, liberalism, authority, freedom, and many other them are always changing.
There is no "common undisputed meaning" for a word. Most words have more than one meaning, and the meaning is situational. Have you ever looked at the word "that" in the dictionary?
Plus: All meanings can shift. To get a feeling for this, just read something written more than about 400 years ago. Try Shakespeare, Chaucer, Beowulf, or take your pick.
Well, yeah, but the whole point is that some words are more stable than others. They're learnt earlier in life and are less probe to diverging interpretations. Some words are so stable they cross the boundaries between languages. "Meschino" is an Italian word coming straight from old Babylonian, just as "cumin" (the spice) in English. Potato or cocoa came to Europe with little change, since they point to something quite specific
Your etymology dictionary doesn't go beyond Hebrew and Arabic, but the word came to those languages via Akkadian (recorded in Old Babylon ca 1750 BC but existing from the 3rd millennium BC) from Sumerian "Gamun".
As for "potato" and "cocoa" they come respectively from the TaÍno pre-colombian language and Nahuatl (spoken by the Aztec) or Mixe-Zoque, as you can easily check.
I'm sure "cumin" is a very useful word for any toddler with an affinity for cooking. Also, kids these days do seem to like tater tots and hot chocolate.
"structured, explicit instruction in six core skills, including systematic phonics, is the most effective and universally applicable approach to teaching reading in low and middle income countries." It's great to have this validation but frustrating that we still need it when we've had research pointing in this direction for the last fifty years (see Romance and Reality, https://harriettjanetos.substack.com/p/romance-and-reality-why-does-the?r=5spuf). These research nuggets are so helpful--thank you!
"The act of reading involves complex visual, perceptual, psycholinguistic, cognitive, and sociocultural processes, but debates on reading often focus on decoding and phonics."
A full school day should be dedicated to literacy skills — and the same for math. We need more time built into the day for essential subjects like reading, especially given the current literacy crisis.
As the post mentions, “[Teachers] must ensure any retrieval practice activity is always followed by an opportunity for students to check their answers and correct errors.”
That right there is key. When teachers actually have the time to provide not just retrieval practice — but also timely, consistent feedback, both formal and informal — it changes everything.
Layering social-emotional learning through genuine relationship-building has also been one of the most powerful prevention tools we have. It’s not SEL or academics; it’s SEL for academics.
Always enjoy reading these.
Some related questions, if I may, regarding the retrieval study:
1. I was surprised to see you write that note-taking is a good strategy for studying. I'm not an expert, but most of the research I've read puts this as a quite weak form of study (which makes sense: it's passive)
2. Re "only superior when feedback was provided": This is essentially flashcards, right? As in, with a typical exam/quiz the student will either not find out the answers, or have to wait considerable time. Of course with flashcards, it is provided instantly. If they answer incorrectly, it simply remains in the session's deck.
3. Aren't methods such as "group discussions" or "self-explanations" etc also forms of retrieval? This is something I've had a few discussions with people over and I've never really followed how such methods can not be based upon retrieving from memory.
Thank you.
1. Yes you’re right that traditional note-taking, especially verbatim or unguided, is usually classed as a weak learning technique, but this study included studies comparing retrieval practice not just to rereading, but also to active elaborative strategies, and note-taking was among them. (I'd also add that the Cornell notes method for example, can be very cognitively demanding.)
2. Yes precisely. The authors found that retrieval only beat elaborative strategies when feedback was given (g = 0.50 with feedback, versus g = –0.14 without)
3. Yes good point, and the authors acknowledge this point. Elaborative strategies often contain retrieval-like components. But they differ in emphasis. Retrieval practice tasks are designed to cue recall directly (e.g., free or cued recall), whereas elaborative tasks (like group discussion or self-explanation) emphasise integration and reorganisation of knowledge rather than the accuracy of recall.
Thanks for reading.
Thanks, Carl.
Given all this, can I ask what your stance is on flashcards? Of course I'm biased, but I'm fascinated by them for multiple reasons - not least of which is how effective they are relative to how little they're utilised.
I was speaking to a couple teachers from the SSC's blog re this. One of them said that they simply were not aware of just how much research there is on this (recall, spacing, flashcards etc), and another said that whilst they *did* remember such terms from their degree days, they:
1) Never/Doesn't really take them seriously
2) Would be worried that the increased difficulty of them (which I tried to explain was a feature and not a bug that the students should be informed of) would lead to increased stress for the students.
This seems bad. And it generally reflects my experience (or lack thereof) from my school days when they were not a thing *at all* (I'm 26, left school at 16).
It's telling that the GEEAP paper talks a lot about cost effectiveness, and not about devoting more resources to ameliorate this supposed international crisis.
Also, with their recommendations on micromanaging reading instruction, they seem to completely ignore a century-old body of eye-movement research:
"Research on eye movement in reading has shown that reading comprehension is optimal if the reading materials are natural and close to the reader’s cognitive and life experiences. Moreover, readers should be taught to use the information from different textual, nonverbal visual features, and multiple representations and modes to assist comprehension. Comprehension is also optimal if reading instruction is embedded in a wide cross-disciplinary curriculum through which students build up general and specific background knowledge for reading and learning. In the continuous conversations about reading and reading instruction, let’s not forget these very principle understandings about reading and how students read most successfully based on the body of century-old eye movement research."
Hung, Y. - N. (2021). The science of reading: The eyes cannot lie. International journal of education and literacy studies, 9(4), p. 26-31.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1328890.pdf
https://www.emmaforum.org/Biblio
Also, maybe postmortem fish can read human social situations:
https://www.mathematik.uni-rostock.de/storages/uni-rostock/Alle_MNF/Mathematik/Struktur/Lehrstuehle/Analysis-Differentialgleichungen/salmon-fMRI.pdf
Thank you Carl - any chance you can tell me title of the SEL research as when I click on the link it takes me to generic search and would like to read in more detail. Sorry if it’s there but I’m not seeing it properly
Yes I would also like this - just goes to the APA home page.
With all due respect to the organizations that authored the GEEAP report, I believe that their findings should be taken with more than just a grain of salt. I have several for drawing this conclusion, but first and foremost is credible research from my highly respected colleague Jim Cummins, Professor Emerita from the University of Toronto. Professor Cummins has conducted extensive research as described in the quotation I post here below. Cummins concludes that the factor of literacy engagement is the strongest variable associated with low reading achievement among minority groups worldwide.
The construct of literacy engagement incorporates notions of time on task (reading and writing extensively), affect (enthusiasm and enjoyment of literacy), depth of cognitive processing (strategies to deepen comprehension), and active pursuit of literacy activities (amount and diversity of literacy practices in and out of school. Cummins (2022) cites 20 years of studies from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) that document how students whose family background was characterized by low income and low education, but who were highly engaged readers, substantially outscored students who came from backgrounds with higher education and higher income, but who themselves were less engaged readers. Based on a massive sample, this finding suggests the stunning conclusion that engaged reading can overcome traditional barriers to reading achievement, including gender, parental education, and income.
Cummins, J. (2021). Rethinking the education of multilingual learners: A critical analysis of theoretical concepts. Multilingual Matters.
Direct Quotations From Cummins (2021)
"The lower reading performance of students from socially disadvantaged backgrounds in comparison to their higher-SES peers can be attributed to the fact that many students from lower-income communities have significantly less access to print in their schools, homes, and neighborhoods than is the case in middle-income communities … In comparison to more affluent families, parents living in poverty don’t have the money to buy books, or other cultural resources, such as iPads, smartphones and computers, for their children….In short, there is an opportunity gap with respect to print access that has not been addressed by schools in most countries." (p. 97)
My advice to literacy researchers and educators is that we examine research from many different legitimate and credible sources for evidence of ways to address global inequities in literacy education.
It's very interesting that the study lists "language" as one of the six "skills" needed for teaching reading. If this is the case, then why is "whole language" rather than partial language or fragmented language or decontextualized language not the preferred way of teaching the "skill" of language?
Love this research digest! Thank you
Hi Carl - you are a TRUE EVIDENCE-BASED Research CHAMPION!
I am in awe as to how you keep "on top of this enormous cache" of research that is published every month!!
Thanks for an AMAZING post again - which i have skimmed through, and forwarded to some colleagues... I will re-read with GREAT interest and use your links as starting points to deepen my learning! THANKS again - your efforts to improve learning broadly and sharing so widely are much appreciated! best always, Gail
Surprise! The narrowed "Science of Reading" (SoR) doesn't live up to its equity claims.
"These findings highlight a persistent disconnect between SoR's equity claims and its research base, underscoring the need to integrate transformative justice approaches so that equity efforts move beyond access and opportunity toward systemic change in literacy development."
Elzy-Palmer, J., A. Babino, and T. Hubbard. 2025. “Dimensions of Equity in the Science of Reading Research: A Systematic Review of Actual, Artificial, and Absent Up-Takes of Equity.” Reading Research Quarterly 60, no. 4: e70070. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.70070.
As usual, very interesting reading. I have a few questions. I'll be brief.
as for AoA and word meaning fluctuation, one might say it's sort of obvious: kids learn basic words with common, undisputed meaning first: dad, mom, bread, school, street, park. Words referring to more complex situations where meanings can shift come later: democracy, liberalism, authority, freedom, and many other them are always changing.
There is no "common undisputed meaning" for a word. Most words have more than one meaning, and the meaning is situational. Have you ever looked at the word "that" in the dictionary?
Plus: All meanings can shift. To get a feeling for this, just read something written more than about 400 years ago. Try Shakespeare, Chaucer, Beowulf, or take your pick.
Well, yeah, but the whole point is that some words are more stable than others. They're learnt earlier in life and are less probe to diverging interpretations. Some words are so stable they cross the boundaries between languages. "Meschino" is an Italian word coming straight from old Babylonian, just as "cumin" (the spice) in English. Potato or cocoa came to Europe with little change, since they point to something quite specific
I'm not sure you know what you think you know. You might try looking up "potato," "cocoa," or "cumin" in an etymology dictionary.
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=cumin
Your etymology dictionary doesn't go beyond Hebrew and Arabic, but the word came to those languages via Akkadian (recorded in Old Babylon ca 1750 BC but existing from the 3rd millennium BC) from Sumerian "Gamun".
You can check p. 147 of this Akkadian dictionary: https://isac.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/shared/docs/mad3.pdf
As for "potato" and "cocoa" they come respectively from the TaÍno pre-colombian language and Nahuatl (spoken by the Aztec) or Mixe-Zoque, as you can easily check.
I'm sure "cumin" is a very useful word for any toddler with an affinity for cooking. Also, kids these days do seem to like tater tots and hot chocolate.
Chocolate comes directly from Nahuatl chocolatl. Aside from that, bye.
Is the GEEAP report about learning to read in English? I see the researchers are from countries that have 1:1 Grapheme-Phoneme correspondence.
Rather “ from countries whose writing systems have 1:1 correspondence”
"structured, explicit instruction in six core skills, including systematic phonics, is the most effective and universally applicable approach to teaching reading in low and middle income countries." It's great to have this validation but frustrating that we still need it when we've had research pointing in this direction for the last fifty years (see Romance and Reality, https://harriettjanetos.substack.com/p/romance-and-reality-why-does-the?r=5spuf). These research nuggets are so helpful--thank you!
Except that eye-movement miscue analysis (EMMA) research directly contradicts that assertion.
https://www.emmaforum.org/Biblio
"The act of reading involves complex visual, perceptual, psycholinguistic, cognitive, and sociocultural processes, but debates on reading often focus on decoding and phonics."
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1328890.pdf
These recaps are SO helpful!! Thank you for doing the work for us.
A full school day should be dedicated to literacy skills — and the same for math. We need more time built into the day for essential subjects like reading, especially given the current literacy crisis.
As the post mentions, “[Teachers] must ensure any retrieval practice activity is always followed by an opportunity for students to check their answers and correct errors.”
That right there is key. When teachers actually have the time to provide not just retrieval practice — but also timely, consistent feedback, both formal and informal — it changes everything.
Layering social-emotional learning through genuine relationship-building has also been one of the most powerful prevention tools we have. It’s not SEL or academics; it’s SEL for academics.
Respectfully, you might want to re-read Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
Also, there is no literacy crisis. The crisis narrative is used to market and micromanage.
https://radicalscholarship.com/2025/11/01/the-reading-crisis-that-always-was-and-never-is/