AI-powered
podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
In this episode, Susan Lambert rejoins podcast alum Natalie Wexler to discuss Natalie’s new book Beyond the Science of Reading: Connecting Literacy Instruction to the Science of Learning. Listeners will gain insights into why this topic is important, what this book offers educators, why Natalie was so drawn to writing this book, and what cognitive science-informed teaching looks like in general. Natalie addresses how cognitive load theory works in practice with literacy, misconceptions about focusing only on phonics, and scaling science-informed instruction. Natalie also answers a question from the listener mailbag about encouraging colleagues to adopt an evidence-based approach.
Show notes:
Quotes:
“We’re overlooking the ways in which the typical approach to teaching reading comprehension and writing actually conflict with what cognitive science tells us about how people learn to do those things.” —Natalie Wexler
“We spend much more time trying to teach…them to read, but we kind of expect them to just pick up writing. You know, for most kids, it does not happen.” —Natalie Wexler
“No matter how good you are at making inferences, if you don't have the requisite background knowledge, you're not gonna be able to do it.” —Natalie Wexler
“It doesn't work to just ask inexperienced writers to just write down stuff. That is not going to provide the cognitive benefits.” —Natalie Wexler
Episode timestamps*
02:00 Introduction: Who is Natalie Wexler?
04:00 Natalie’s new book
07:00 What is the science of learning?
11:00 Connecting the science of learning to reading, writing, literacy
14:00 Automaticity and cognitive load theory
17:00 Transferable vs non-transferable skills
22:00 Strategies to release cognitive load when learning new skills
24:00 Learning to write, writing to learn.
29:00 Bringing science informed teaching to scale
32:00 What readers will take away from the book
33:00 Mailbag question: How can one person get more colleagues to use an evidence-based approach?
36:00 Final thoughts
*Timestamps are approximate