![\"\"](\"https:\/\/braindevs.net\/blog\/\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/AdobeStock_322522389.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nGood<\/strong> news: we’ve got SO MUCH research about learning that can guide and inform our teaching!<\/p>\n Bad<\/strong> news: we’ve got SO MUCH research about learning that…well, it can honestly overwhelm us.<\/p>\n I mean: should we focus on retrieval practice<\/em> or stress<\/em> or working memory<\/em> limitations or handshakes at the door<\/em>? How do we put all these research findings together?<\/p>\n Many scholars have created thoughtful systems to assemble those pieces into a conceptual whole. (For example: here<\/a>, and here<\/a>, and here<\/a>, and here<\/a>.)<\/p>\n Recently, I’ve come across a system called 4C\/ID — a catchy acronym for “four component instructional design.” (It might also be R2D2’s distant cousin.)<\/p>\n First proposed by\u00a0van Merri\u00ebnboer, and more recently detailed by\u00a0van Merri\u00ebnboer and Kirschner, 4C\/ID initially strikes me as compelling for two reasons.<\/p>\n Here at Learning and the Brain, we always look at research<\/em> to inform our decisions. Often we look at one study — or a handful of studies — for interesting findings and patterns.<\/p>\n Scholars often take another approach, called “meta-analysis<\/strong>.” When undertaking a meta-analysis, researchers gather ALL the studies that fit certain criteria, and aggregate their findings. For this reason, some folks think of meta-analytic conclusions as very meaningful. *<\/p>\n A recent meta-analysis<\/a> looked at studies of 4C\/ID, and found … well … found that it REALLY HELPS. In stats language, it found a Cohen’s d of 0.79. <\/em><\/p>\n For any one intervention, that’s a remarkably high number. For a curriculum and instruction planning system, that’s HUGE. I can’t think of any other instructional design program with such a substantial effect.<\/p>\n In fact, it was this meta-analysis, and that Cohen’s d, that prompted me to investigate 4C\/ID.<\/p>\n Any substantial instructional planning concept resists easy summary. So, I’m still making my way through the descriptions and diagrams and examples.<\/p>\n As I do so, I think:\u00a0well, it all just makes a lot of sense<\/em>.<\/p>\n As you can see from this graphic, the details get complex quickly. But (I think) the headlines are:<\/p>\n … ensure students know relevant procedures<\/strong>\u00a0fluently before beginning instruction<\/p>\n … organize problems from simple to complex<\/strong>, aiming to finish with “real-life” tasks<\/p>\n … create varied<\/strong> practice<\/p>\n … insist on repetition<\/strong><\/p>\nReason #1: Meta-analysis<\/h2>\n
Reason #2: Experience<\/h2>\n
<\/a>