Why Good Lessons Still Fail to Stick

And what cognitive science tells us to do instead

There’s a moment every teacher knows painfully well.

The lesson went as planned.
Students were engaged.
The room felt productive.

And yet, a week later, it’s gone.

Not misunderstood.
Not half-remembered.
Gone.

As in: “Wait… we did this already?”

This is usually the moment we are encouraged to blame attention spans, motivation, or “kids these days.”

But the problem is rarely the students.

What We’ve Been Taught to Look For

In schools, we are taught to recognise quality by how a lesson looks.

Clear objectives.
Smooth pacing.
Active tasks.
Visible engagement.
Extra credit if everything fits neatly into the allotted time.

These things matter.

But they are not the thing that makes learning stick.

Because learning does not live in what students do.
It lives in what they think.

The Transmission Trap

Most lessons are planned as if learning happens through transmission.

Explain it clearly.
Model it carefully.
Practise it repeatedly.
Hope it sticks.

But memory does not work like that.

Cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham puts it simply:

“Memory is the residue of thought.”

Students do not remember what they were shown.
They remember what their minds worked on.

If a lesson does not require students to:

• compare ideas

• justify reasoning

• notice patterns

• resolve confusion

There is nothing for memory to attach to.

Engagement Is Not Thinking

Many lessons are designed to be “engaging.”

But engagement has been given the wrong definition.

It is often mistaken for:

• participation

• compliance

• on-task behaviour

None of these guarantee thinking.

Students can:

• follow instructions without understanding

• get correct answers without knowing why

• look successful while their thinking stays unchanged

When participation becomes the goal, thinking becomes optional.
And optional thinking does not stick.

The Shift That Changes Everything

If we want learning to last, we have to stop designing for activity and start designing for thinking.

That requires one quiet but radical shift.

Instead of starting with:
“What will students do?”

We start with:
“What should students understand differently by the end?”

Not do.
Understand.

What That Shift Looks Like in Practice

Let’s take a familiar lesson on fractions.

The lesson is clear and structured.
Everyone knows what to do.

The teacher explains what a fraction is.
Models how to shade one half, one third, one quarter.
Students complete a worksheet colouring shapes.

And yet many students leave believing that fractions are mainly about colouring shapes in the correct amount.

Now we redesign by starting with understanding.

We ask:
What should students understand differently by the end of this lesson about fractions?

For example:
Fractions describe how much of something is being shared into equal parts.

This idea becomes the anchor.
Everything else serves it.

Why Delaying Explanation Works

Instead of starting with an explanation, the lesson begins with a situation.

Two students share one sandwich.
Three students share one sandwich.

Who gets more?

No fractions yet.
No vocabulary.
No “today we will.”

Just thinking.

Students disagree.
They justify their reasoning.
Some change their minds.

Eventually someone says, “That doesn’t seem fair.”

This is not a problem.
This is the moment learning begins.

Only then does explanation arrive.

“What you’ve been drawing has a name. We call these fractions.”

The language sticks because it explains something students already understand.

Confusion Is Not the Enemy

We are often told that good teaching means removing confusion.

But confusion, when designed intentionally, is often the doorway to understanding.

Clarity matters.
But the timing of explanation matters more.

Research on desirable difficulties shows that productive struggle strengthens memory and transfer.
Explanation works best when it answers a question students already have, not one we hope they will remember later.

Why This Matters

When learning does not stick, we do not just lose content.

We lose confidence.
We lose coherence.
We lose the sense that school learning means something.

Designing for thinking is not about adding more activities.
It is about choosing the right cognitive work.

Students will not remember what we carefully explained.

They will remember what their minds were invited to wrestle with.

The Takeaway

Good lessons do not fail because teachers are not working hard enough.

They fail when:

• thinking is optional

• explanation comes too soon

• activity is mistaken for understanding

The fix is not louder teaching.
It is earlier thinking.

Curiosity before content.
Thinking before telling.
Understanding before activity.

That is how learning finally sticks.

Research Foundations

• Willingham, D. T. (2009). Why Don’t Students Like School?

• Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way

• Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity

• Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Three types of conceptual change

• Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work