Following our annual tussle with hundreds of studies of merit, we\u2019ve pared them down to 10 you shouldn\u2019t miss\u2014from what AI can (and can\u2019t) do to the neuroscience of brain synchrony.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For those of us hoping for a quiet, back-to-normal kind of year, the research coming out of 2025 might disappoint. A rising tide of teenage mental health issues sent researchers scurrying for answers, and the sudden ascendance of AI posed a new threat to codes of academic conduct and caused some educators to forecast the end of teaching as we know it (we\u2019re here to dispel that myth).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There was plenty of good news in the mix\u2014and fascinating news, too. Neuroscientists continued to push the envelope on mapping the human brain, using cutting-edge technology to get a sneak peek at the \u201cbrain synchrony\u201d between students and teachers as they learn about complex topics, and a comprehensive review of social and emotional learning confirmed, once again, that there\u2019s no substitute for caring, welcoming school environments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Finally, we did our due diligence and unearthed classroom strategies that can make a big difference for students, from the use of math picture books to a better, more humane way to incorporate tests and games of knowledge into your classroom activities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Start of newsletter promotion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In case anyone thought the jury was still out on the Turing test, which proposes a hypothetical threshold at which humans and machines respond indistinguishably to a prompt\u2014more evidence\u00a0recently came in, and it\u2019s becoming increasingly difficult to tell who\u2019s testing who.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Researchers from the University of North Carolina set a \u201cdeep neural\u201d AI model to work on a college-level anatomy and physiology textbook, after first training the software to recognize important information. The AI took stock, pondered in its fashion, and then dutifully produced 2,191 test questions tied to learning standards, which a panel of teachers judged to be \u201con par with human-generated questions in terms of their relevance to the learning objectives.\u201d Remarkably, the instructors also said they\u2019d consider adopting the machine-generated questions for their courses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That\u2019s spooky, but not without its silver linings. Test creation is time-consuming for teachers, and one knowledgeable educator who\u00a0took AI for a test drive\u00a0says that it performs well on other tasks like planning lessons, writing instructions, and even composing emails to parents. New AI-powered tools like Diffit, Curipod, and MagicSchool.ai, meanwhile, are starting to sound like revolutionary teaching aids.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Concern that the end of human teaching is one software release away is premature: Studies we\u2019ve reviewed suggest that AI still requires a lot of fine-tuning, and in\u00a0July of 2025, researchers concluded that without human intervention, AI is atrocious at mathematics, performing poorly on open-ended problems and routinely flubbing even simple math calculations. To be useful, it turns out, AI may need us more than we need it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
No one likes tests\u2014except the three authors of a\u00a02025 study, apparently. The trio, who have experience as teachers and researchers, sing the praises of virtually every kind of test, quiz, and knowledge game, asserting that such assessments should be frequent, low-stakes, highly engaging, and even communal. Their rationale: When properly designed and stripped of dread, tests and quizzes dramatically improve \u201clong-term retention and the creation of more robust retrieval routes for future access,\u201d a well-established phenomenon known as the\u00a0testing effect<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The study is a fascinating, granular look at the mechanics of testing and its impacts on learning. Here are some of the highlights:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mix it up:<\/strong> To maximize student engagement, quiz students frequently\u2014but don\u2019t let the format get stale. In their analysis, the authors endorse testing formats as varied as multiple choice, cued-recall tests, clickers, fill-in-the-blank, short answer, and contests of knowledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Be competitive:<\/strong> When designing multiple-choice or true-false tests, opt for \u201ccompetitive alternatives\u201d in your answers. For example, when asking \u201cWhat is the hottest terrestrial planet?,\u201d proffer Venus<\/em>, Mars<\/em>, and Mercury<\/em> instead of Venus<\/em>, Uranus<\/em>, and Saturn<\/em>\u2014because \u201cUranus and Saturn aren\u2019t terrestrial planets.\u201d Competitive alternatives require students to scrutinize all options, the authors hypothesize, leading them to retrieve and consider more learned material.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pretest:<\/strong> Quizzing students on material they haven\u2019t yet learned improves long-term performance \u201ceven if [students] are not able to answer any of those questions correctly,\u201d according to the researchers. Notably, pretesting can also lead to \u201ca reduction in mind wandering\u201d during subsequent lessons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Get communal:<\/strong> Asking students to take tests in groups can improve retention and motivation while reducing anxiety. Consider focusing on specific rather than open-ended questions, the authors caution, since students can sometimes \u201crecall and remember information less accurately\u201d when working together.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pass it on:<\/strong> Teach students to self-test by \u201csummarizing the main points from a lecture\u2026 without looking at any notes,\u201d or by meeting in \u201csmall study groups where the students practice testing one another\u2014an activity that many students already report doing.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Like the proverbial canary in the coal mine, subtle shifts in a teacher\u2019s tone of voice\u2014a sharp rise in volume or a sudden barrage of repeated instructions born of frustration\u2014can be the first sign that something\u2019s awry in the classroom, disturbing a fragile equilibrium and leading students to clam up or act out, a\u00a0study published late in 2022\u00a0suggests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Researchers observed as teens and preteens listened to instructions given by teachers\u2014 \u201cI\u2019m waiting for people to quiet down\u201d or \u201cIt\u2019s time to tidy up all of your belongings,\u201d for example\u2014delivered in warm, neutral, or controlling tones. While the effect was unintended, an authoritative tone often came off as confrontational, undermining students\u2019 sense of competence and discouraging them from confiding in teachers. Warm, supportive tones, on the other hand, contributed to a classroom environment that reinforced learning across multiple social and academic dimensions like sense of belonging, autonomy, and enjoyment of the class.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n It takes years to find the right tonal balance, says experienced middle school teacher Kristine Napper. \u201cNeither high expectations nor kind hearts can do the job alone,\u201d\u00a0she coaches. Instead, teachers should strive for a warm, supportive tone and then draw on that \u201cwellspring of trust to hold students to high standards of deep engagement with course content.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2021, we reported that as students progressed through a computer science course, the learning material left neural fingerprints that mirrored brain activity in other students, the teacher, and experts in the field. \u201cStudents who failed to grasp the material,\u201d we wrote, \u201cexhibited neural signatures that were outliers; they were drifting.\u201d But the brain patterns of students who performed well on a later test aligned strongly with other top performing students\u2014and with the teacher and experts, too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Intriguingly, even abstract concepts\u2014those that lack any physical attributes\u2014appeared to trigger similar mental representations in students\u2019 minds, attesting to the remarkable cognitive flexibility underlying human communication and knowledge sharing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A\u00a02025 study\u00a0using electroencephalography (EEG) largely confirms those findings. High school science teachers taught groups of young adults fitted with electrodes about science topics such as bipedalism, habitats, and lipids. Researchers found that stronger \u201cbrain synchrony\u201d between peers\u2014and between students and teachers\u2014predicted better academic performance on follow-up tests, both immediately and a full week later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Together, these studies underscore the importance of scholarly expertise and direct instruction, but also hint at the downstream power of peer-to-peer and social learning. As knowledge passes from teachers to learners to greater and lesser degrees\u2014some students grasp material quickly, others more slowly\u2014an opportunity to distribute the work of learning emerges. When advanced students are paired with struggling peers, assisted by nudges from the teacher, groups of students might eventually converge around an accurate, common understanding of the material.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The old adage that a picture is worth a thousand words\u2014and two are worth two thousand\u2014might be expressed, mathematically, as a simple multiplication formula. But can reading math picture books really multiply learning?<\/p>\n\n\n\n A\u00a02025 review\u00a0of 16 studies concluded that math books like\u00a0Are We There Yet, Daddy?<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0Sir Cumference and the Dragon of Pi<\/em>\u00a0improved student engagement and attitudes toward math; strengthened kids\u2019 grasp of math representations like graphs or physical models; and boosted performance on tasks like counting to 20, understanding place value, and calculating diameters. In early childhood, in particular, math picture books worked wonders\u2014one study found that young students \u201ctend to anticipate and guess what will happen next, resulting in high engagement, aroused interest in understanding the problems, and curiosity in finding solutions\u201d\u2014but even middle school students seemed mesmerized by math read-alouds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Importantly, math picture books weren\u2019t a substitute for procedural fluency or mathematical practice. Typically, the authors noted, teachers bracketed math units with picture books, introducing a mathematical concept \u201cin order to prepare [students] for the upcoming practice and activities,\u201d or, alternatively, used them to review material at the end of the lesson.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s hard to move the needle on student writing. Hours of close reading followed by the addition of dozens of edifying margin notes can swallow teacher weekends whole, but there\u2019s no guarantee students know how to use the feedback productively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In fact, without guidance, revisions tend to be superficial, a\u00a0new study\u00a0suggests\u2014students might correct typos and grammatical mistakes, for example, or make cursory adjustments to a few ideas, but leave it at that. A promising, time-saving alternative is to deploy rubrics, mentor texts, and other clarifying writing guidelines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the study, high school students were graded on the clarity, sophistication, and thoroughness of their essays before being split into groups to test the effectiveness of various revision strategies. Students who consulted rubrics that spelled out the elements of an excellent essay\u2014a clear central thesis, support for the claim, and cohesive overall structure, for example\u2014improved their performance by a half-letter grade while kids who read mentor texts boosted scores by a third of a letter grade.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rubrics and mentor texts are reusable, \u201cincrease teachers\u2019 efficient use of time,\u201d and \u201cenhance self-feedback\u201d in a way that can lead to better, more confident writers down the line, the new research suggests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Parents, teachers, and medical professionals are wringing their hands over the alarming, decades-long rise in teenage mental health issues, including depression, feelings of \u201cpersistent hopelessness,\u201d and drug addiction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The root causes remain elusive\u2014cell phones and social media are prime suspects\u2014but a\u00a0sprawling 2025 study\u00a0offers another explanation that\u2019s gaining traction: After scouring surveys, data sets, and cultural artifacts, researchers theorized that a primary cause is \u201ca decline over decades in opportunities for children and teens to play, roam, and engage in other activities independent of direct oversight and control by adults.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Scholarly reviews of historical articles, books, and advice columns on child rearing depict an era when young children \u201cwalked or biked to school alone,\u201d and contributed to their \u201cfamily\u2019s well being\u201d and \u201ccommunity life\u201d through meaningful chores and jobs. If that all feels vaguely mythical,\u00a0data collected\u00a0over the last 50 years reveals a correlation: frank admissions by parents that their children play outdoors independently less than they did, and significant drops in the number of kids who walk, bike, or bus to school alone or are allowed to cross busy roads by themselves. In the U.S., for example, a government\u00a0survey showed\u00a0that 48 percent of K\u20138 students walked to school in 1969, but by 2009 only 13 percent did.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Risky play and unsupervised outdoor activities, meanwhile, which might \u201cprotect against the development of phobias\u201d and reduce \u201cfuture anxiety by increasing the person\u2019s confidence that they can deal effectively with emergencies,\u201d are often frowned upon. <\/strong>That last point is crucial, because dozens of studies suggest that happiness in childhood, and then later in adolescence, is driven by internal feelings of \u201cautonomy, competence, and relatedness\u201d\u2014and independent play, purposeful work, and important roles in classrooms and families are vital, early forms of practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Whatever the causes, young children seem to sense that something\u2019s off. In one\u00a02017 study, kindergartners who viewed images of fun activities routinely struck pictures that included adults from the category of play, rejecting the role of grown-ups in a domain they clearly saw as their own.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s an often-fiery but ultimately dubious debate: Should teachers employ direct instruction, or opt for inquiry-based learning?<\/p>\n\n\n\n At its core, direct instruction often conveys information \u201cby lecturing and by giving a leading role to the teacher,\u201d researchers explain in a\u00a02025 study\u00a0examining the evidence supporting both approaches. Critics typically focus solely on its passive qualities, a straw-man argument that ignores activities such as note-taking, practice quizzes, and classroom discussions. Opponents of inquiry-based learning, meanwhile, characterize it as chaotic, akin to sending students on a wild goose chase and asking them to discover the laws of physics on their own\u2014though it can actually unlock \u201cdeep learning processes such as elaboration, self-explanation, and metacognitive strategies,\u201c the researchers say.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Both sides misrepresent what teachers actually do in classrooms. Instructional models are \u201coften combined in practice,\u201d the researchers note, and inquiry-based learning is usually supported with direct instruction. Teachers might begin a lesson by leading a review of key concepts, for example, and then ask students to apply what they\u2019re learning in unfamiliar contexts. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Let the debate rage on. Teachers already know that factual fluency and the need to struggle, flail, and even hit dead-ends are integral to learning. Teaching is fluid and complex and spools out in real time; it resists every effort to reduce it to a single strategy or program that works for all kids, in all contexts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s d\u00e9j\u00e0 vu all over again. The researcher Joseph Durlak, who put social and emotional learning on the map with his\u00a02011 study\u00a0that concluded that SEL programs boosted academic performance by an impressive 11 percentile points, was back at it in 2025\u2014working with an ambitious new team, led by Yale professor Christina Cipriano, on a similar mission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The group just published a\u00a0comprehensive meta-analysis\u00a0that surveyed a whopping 424 studies involving over half a million K\u201312 students, scrutinizing school-based SEL programs and strategies such as mindfulness, interpersonal skills, classroom management, and emotional intelligence. The findings: Students who participated in such programs experienced \u201cimproved academic achievement, school climate, school functioning, social emotional skills, attitudes, and prosocial and civic behaviors,\u201d the researchers concluded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Intriguingly, SEL remained a powerful driver of better cultures and student outcomes into the middle and high school years, a reminder that there\u2019s no cutoff point for building relationships, teaching empathy, and making schools inclusive and welcoming.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While politicians continue to stoke controversy on the topic, there\u2019s actually widespread support for SEL, as long as it\u2019s connected to better academic outcomes. A\u00a02021 Thomas B. Fordham Institute survey\u00a0revealed that parents reacted negatively to classroom instruction labeled \u201csocial and emotional learning,\u201d but were favorably disposed when a single clause was added\u2014calling it \u201csocial-emotional & academic learning\u201d turned the tide and secured parental buy-in.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the United States, the teaching of reading comprehension has ping-ponged between skills-based and knowledge-based approaches. In 2019, things appeared to come to a head:\u00a0While reading programs\u00a0continued to emphasize transferable skills like \u201cfinding the main idea\u201d or \u201cmaking inferences,\u201d the author Natalie Wexler published\u00a0The Knowledge Gap<\/em>, an influential takedown of skills-based methods, and a\u00a0large 2020 study\u00a0from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute concurred, noting that \u201cexposing kids to rich content in civics, history, and law\u201d taught reading more effectively than skills-based approaches.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Now a pair of new, high-quality studies\u2014featuring leading researchers and encompassing more than 5,000 students in 39 schools\u2014appears to put the finishing touches on a decades-long effort to push background knowledge to the forefront of reading instruction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In a\u00a0Harvard study, 3,000 elementary students participated in a yearlong literacy program focused on the \u201cknowledge rich\u201d domains of social studies and science, exploring the methods used to study past events, for example, or investigating how animals evolve to survive in different habitats. Compared to their counterparts in business-as-usual classes, the \u201cknowledge based\u201d readers scored 18 percent higher on general reading comprehension. Background knowledge acts like a scaffold, the researchers explained, helping students \u201cconnect new learning to a general schema and transfer their knowledge to related topics.\u201d The pendulum is swinging, but the researchers caution against overreach: There appear to be \u201ctwo separate but complementary cognitive processes involved in development and learning: \u2018skill building\u2019 and \u2018knowledge accumulation,\u2019\u201d they clarified. We may have the balance out of whack, but to develop proficient readers, you need both.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"3. HOW TONE OF VOICE CHANGES CLASSROOM CULTURE<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
4. BRAINS THAT FIRE TOGETHER WIRE TOGETHER<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
5. IN SUM, MATH PICTURE BOOKS WORK<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
6. TO IMPROVE STUDENT WRITING, REDUCE FEEDBACK (AND PUT THE ONUS ON KIDS)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
7. A NEW THEORY ABOUT THE TEEN MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
8. DIRECT INSTRUCTION AND INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING ARE COMPLEMENTARY<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
9. A TRULY MASSIVE REVIEW FINDS VALUE IN SEL\u2014AGAIN<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
10. MORE EVIDENCE FOR MOVING PAST \u201cFINDING THE MAIN IDEA\u201d<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
In the other\u00a0study, a team of researchers, including leading experts David Grismer, Daniel Willingham, and Chris Holleman, examined the impact of the \u201cCore Knowledge\u201d program on 2,310 students in nine lottery-based Colorado charter schools from kindergarten to sixth grade. The approach improved reading scores by 16 percentile points, and if implemented nationally, the researchers calculated, might catapult U.S. students from 15th to fifth place on international reading tests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n