Learning Is Not a Guessing Game: What My Students and Research Have Taught Me About How Learning Works

Have you ever put a lot of thought into a lesson with interesting examples, hands-on activities, maybe even a little humor, only to realize halfway through that some students are fully locked in while others have already checked out? That’s been my reality more times than I can count. I teach. I design lessons. I manage instructors at a private after-school learning center in Irvine. And despite my best efforts to make lessons relevant and engaging, the results are often a hit or miss.

For a long time, I chalked this up to differences in motivation or attention spans. Some students were “naturally engaged,” others weren’t. But the more I taught and observed learning in real time, the more uncomfortable that explanation felt. If engagement alone were the answer, why did some students seem interested during the lesson but unable to apply what they learned later? Why did certain strategies work beautifully one day and fall flat the next?

Those questions pushed me to think more deeply about what makes learning stick. Learning doesn’t automatically happen just because information is presented or because an activity feels engaging. But it seemed like the right thing to do: letting learners “discover” content on their own, prioritizing their preferences, and assuming that more activity automatically means more learning. But research tells a more complicated (and more useful) story. The uncomfortable truth is that some well-intentioned teaching practices are built on myths rather than evidence.

Curiosity has led me to consider learning theory and research-based instructional design. The first step to understanding what makes learning stick is to debunk a few persistent misconceptions about learning and show how evidence-based principles can lead to better learning experiences rather than “engaging” ones.

Background: Teaching in the Real World, Not a Lab

Working in a private after-school learning center means wearing multiple hats. I’m not just an instructor delivering content; I’m also a lesson designer deciding how material is structured and a manager supporting other instructors who face the same challenges I do. Our students come in after a full school day, tired, distracted, and carrying wildly different levels of prior knowledge.

When teaching my students, I genuinely care about making learning meaningful. I try to connect lessons to students’ experiences, vary activities, and keep things interactive. Sometimes it works incredibly well. Other times, I lose half the room while the other half thrives. That inconsistency is what made me realize something important: engagement is not the same as learning, and effort alone doesn’t guarantee results.

This blog reflects how my experience in the classroom pushed me to move beyond intuition and toward evidence-based approaches to teaching and learning.

Different learners, different engagement levels.

Attention doesn’t always translate to understanding.

Learning Is More Than Paying Attention

One of the biggest shifts in my thinking came from understanding what learning actually is. Learning is not simply exposure to information or momentary engagement; it is a lasting change in knowledge, skills, beliefs, or ability to apply what was learned (Shuell, 2013).

What learning theories reveal

Cognitive learning theory helped me understand why some of my well-designed lessons still didn’t stick. Learning depends heavily on how information is processed in working memory and connected to prior knowledge. When students lack the foundation to make sense of new material, even the most engaging activity can feel overwhelming (Lovett et al., 2023).

Social cognitive theory added another layer. Students don’t just absorb information; they observe, model, and regulate their own learning. Their confidence, or self-efficacy, plays a huge role in whether they persist or disengage when things get difficult (Denler et al., 2010). I began to notice how quickly students shut down when they believed they “weren’t good at this,” regardless of how engaging the lesson was.

Sociocultural theory reminded me that learning doesn’t happen in isolation. Students learn through interaction, language, and shared problem solving, but only when those interactions are structured and purposeful (Scott & Palincsar, 2012).

Design principles that matter

These theories point to several principles I now actively consider when designing lessons:

• Learning requires structure, especially for students who are still developing foundational skills.

• New content must connect to what students already know, or misconceptions will get in the way.

• Motivation helps, but confidence and support determine whether students persist.

• Collaboration works best when roles, goals, and guidance are clear.

Debunking Myths I Once Believed

“A story is memorable, but what stays with students is the lesson woven into it, not just the narrative itself.”

Myth #1: “If students are engaged, they must be learning.”

This myth shaped many of my early lessons. If students were talking, moving, and participating, I assumed learning was happening. Research suggests otherwise.

Lovett et al. (2023) explain that learning often feels effortful and even uncomfortable. Strategies that lead to long-term retention (ie, retrieval practice) don’t always feel engaging in the moment. I’ve seen this firsthand: students enjoy certain activities but struggle to apply the concepts later.

Designing those lessons sometimes felt like weaving a fable into a remarkable tapestry, carefully layered, colorful, and enjoyable to experience. Students admired the tapestry. They followed the story. But when it came time to apply the lesson woven into it, the meaning either slipped away or was never fully grasped in the first place. The experience lingered; the learning did not.

Activities that feel smooth and entertaining can create an illusion of understanding, especially when they don’t require students to retrieve, apply, or organize knowledge in meaningful ways.

What I’ve learned: Engagement is helpful, but it’s not proof of learning. Evidence matters more than energy.

“Learning is a cognitive process, not just an activity or entertainment. It is shaped by how information is processed and organized.”

Myth #2: “Students learn best when they figure things out on their own.”

As an instructor, it’s tempting to step back and let students “discover” knowledge independently. In my undergraduate education courses, I had been taught to take on a mentor role, guiding students as they explore the content. Kirschner and van Merriënboer (2013) challenge this assumption, showing that minimal guidance can actually hinder learning. This is especially true for novice learners.

In my classroom, I noticed that open-ended activities worked well for advanced students but confused others. Without enough guidance, some students made mistakes or disengaged entirely. When I left students to explore on their own, their learning was only superficial. They “engaged” with the content at hand, but they didn’t know what to make of the new information. Some students merely memorize the information and score high on quizzes but show no deeper thinking, illustrating what it means to be a jack of all trades but a master of none.

What I’ve learned: Effective instruction provides scaffolding first, then gradually releases responsibility as learners gain expertise.

Evidence-based instruction helps more students reach those breakthrough moments.

Why Evidence-Based Instruction Matters in Practice

Teaching decisions have consequences

Every instructional choice sends a message about how learning works. When those choices are based on intuition alone, students pay the price. Especially those who already struggle.

Lovett et al. (2023) outline research-based principles that now guide my lesson design, including:

• Building on prior knowledge intentionally

• Managing cognitive load through chunking and sequencing

• Using practice and feedback to strengthen learning

• Designing for transfer, not just short-term success

Applying theory at an after-school center

In my role as a manager, evidence-based practice matters even more. Instructors come from different backgrounds and rely on different instincts. Learning theory gives us a shared framework for discussing what works and why.

• Social cognitive theory informs how we model problem-solving and encourage self-regulation (Denler et al., 2010).

• Sociocultural theory supports structured collaboration rather than unplanned group work (Scott & Palincsar, 2012).

• Cognitive theory helps us recognize when students are overloaded rather than unmotivated (Lovett et al., 2023).

Using evidence-based practices doesn’t mean you are taking away creative opportunities and fun learning. Instead, it gives the lesson a direction.

From Trial-and-Error to Intentional Design

My experience teaching in an afterschool learning center taught me something important: when learning doesn’t stick, it’s rarely because students don’t care. More often, it’s because instruction doesn’t align with how learning actually works.

Understanding learning theories helped me move away from guessing and toward intentional, research-informed design. It helped me explain why some lessons worked and others didn’t. It taught me how to use both. For me, evidence-based instructional design isn’t abstract or academic. It’s practical, ethical, and necessary.

The takeaway: learning is too important to leave to chance. Caution is imperative. When we design with evidence in mind, we give all students, naturally engaged or otherwise, a better chance to succeed.

Do you subscribe to the same philosophy?

References:

Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2010). Social cognitive theory. In E. M. Anderman & L. H. Anderman (Eds.), Psychology of classroom learning: An encyclopedia. The Gale Group, Inc.

Kirschner, P.A., & van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (2013). Do learners really know best? Urban legends in education. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 169-183.

Lovett, M.C., Bridges. M.W., DiPietro, M., Ambrose, S.A., & Norman, M.K. How learning works: 8 research-based principles for smart teaching (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Scott, S., & Palincsar, A. (2012). Sociocultural theory. In E. M. Anderman & L. H. Anderman (Eds.), Psychology of classroom learning: An encyclopedia. The Gale Group, Inc.

Shuell, T. J. (2013). Theories of learning. In E. M. Anderman & L. H. Anderman (Eds.), Psychology of classroom learning: An encyclopedia. The Gale Group, Inc.