Theory Crib Sheet
The theories the sessions use, where each one appears, and what to say when someone pushes back
One entry for each theory the sessions actually use, in the order they first appear. Each gives the idea in a line, where it’s used, and a reply for when someone challenges it. The full account, with references, is in the Theory Library.
The pattern throughout is experience → name it → use it: participants do something first, then hear the theory in a burst of 10 minutes or less, then apply it to their own session.
Andragogy (Knowles)
The idea: adults learn best from their own experience and from problems they care about.
Where it’s used: Session 1 opener, “What makes a good teacher?” (0–10 min), where it stays unnamed. Also the running artefact: everyone works on a session they teach, or would like to teach.
If someone pushes back: “My learners are junior. They need more direction.” Reply: “Fair. It’s a spectrum, not a rule. Even with novices, start by finding out what they already bring.” Knowles’s assumptions are contested as a theory; treat them as working principles.
Cognitive load (Sweller)
The idea: working memory can only handle a few new items at once (about four, Cowan 2001). Good design cuts the load that doesn’t help learning.
Where it’s used: Session 1, the bad slide and “what do you remember?” (10–15 min), then the bottleneck and the two adverts (15–25 min), then both redesign rounds.
If someone pushes back: “My learners like everything on the slide so they can look back at it.” Reply: “Then they need a handout. A slide and a document do different jobs. On screen, the extra text competes with you.”
Dual coding (Paivio)
The idea: we hold words and images in separate but linked systems, so a spoken explanation plus a relevant picture is remembered better than either alone. Mayer’s multimedia principles build on this: full on-screen text that repeats what you’re saying, next to a picture, adds load rather than help.
Where it’s used: Session 1, “two channels” (15–25 min), then the redesign rounds.
If someone pushes back: “These were lab studies with students. Wards are different.” Reply: “Fair point about the evidence. Test it on your own slide: say it, show one picture, and see what people remember.” Don’t let it slide into learning styles, which have no good evidence.
Constructive alignment (Biggs)
The idea: outcomes, activities and evidence should all line up with what learners need to be able to do.
Where it’s used: the design canvas in every session. Session 1, “Who is this slide for?” (72–80 min). Session 3, the verb wall (22–35 min), rewriting outcomes (40–58 min) and “Does it line up?” (58–65 min).
If someone pushes back: “Clinical teaching is too unpredictable to plan outcomes.” Reply: “Biggs is about planned teaching, which is what we’re designing. Even at the bedside, the question works: what do I want this learner to be able to do afterwards?”
Implementation intentions (Gollwitzer)
The idea: a specific plan for when, where and how you’ll act makes action more likely than a general intention. A meta-analysis found a reliable effect on reaching goals (Gollwitzer & Sheeran 2006).
Where it’s used: the asks at the end of Sessions 1 and 2, written on a card and photographed. Session 3’s close, “The one thing I’ll do differently is…”.
If someone pushes back: “Writing it on a card won’t make anyone do it.” Reply: “On its own, probably not. It works for goals people already want, and it needs follow-up. That’s why the next session opens by reading the ask back.”
Retrieval practice
The idea: pulling something out of memory strengthens it more than reading it again (Roediger & Karpicke 2006).
Where it’s used: Session 1, “what do you remember?” (10–15 min). Session 2, the Kahoot on Session 1 (10–20 min), named only afterwards (20–28 min). Session 3, “Try what you made” (0–10 min).
If someone pushes back: “Staff hate being tested.” Reply: “So keep it low stakes: nicknames, no scores kept, a laugh. The benefit comes from the remembering, not the mark.”
Spaced practice
The idea: we forget fast at first, then more slowly. Coming back to material after a gap beats cramming it in one go (Cepeda et al. 2006).
Where it’s used: the week between sessions. Session 2, the forgetting curve, shown after the Kahoot (20–28 min). Session 3, the 30/60/90-day follow-through loop (65–75 min).
If someone pushes back: “My learners remember things from years ago.” Reply: “Usually things they’ve used again and again since. That’s spacing at work.” Ebbinghaus tested himself on nonsense syllables: use the shape of the curve, not its exact numbers.
Interleaving
The idea: mixing different kinds of problem in practice, rather than doing one kind in a block, helps people tell them apart and choose the right approach later.
Where it’s used: Session 2, “Name the strategies” (40–46 min), as one of the four strategies participants can build into their activity.
If someone pushes back: “Mixing it up just confuses people.” Reply: “It does feel harder at the time, and practice scores can dip. The pay-off shows later.” The evidence is strongest for maths and telling categories apart; Dunlosky et al. (2013) rated it of moderate usefulness.
Experiential learning (Kolb)
The idea: we learn by having an experience, reflecting on it, making sense of it, and trying something new.
Where it’s used: the shape of every session: the bad slide before cognitive load (Session 1), the Kahoot before retrieval is named (Session 2), the card sort before Kirkpatrick (Session 3). The Session 2 ask has participants try the tools from the presenter’s side.
If someone pushes back: “Isn’t Kolb discredited?” Reply: “His learning styles are. The cycle is a useful description of how sessions can flow, not a proven mechanism, and that’s how we use it.”
Kirkpatrick’s four levels
The idea: training can be judged at four levels: reaction, learning, behaviour, results. Donald Kirkpatrick set them out in 1959; the New World Kirkpatrick Model (2010s; book 2016) adds what the workplace must do to support change.
Where it’s used: Session 3, “Delivered ≠ changed” card sort (10–22 min). Also the programme’s own Evaluation Toolkit.
If someone pushes back: “Kirkpatrick has been heavily criticised.” Reply: “It has. Holton (1996) argued it’s a list of categories, not a model of cause and effect. Yardley and Dornan (2012) argued it suits only simple, short-term interventions in medical education, and shouldn’t be used to rank evidence. We use it as shared language for one point: delivered isn’t the same as changed.”
Miller’s pyramid
The idea: competence runs from knows to knows how, shows how and does (Miller 1990). The verb in your outcome decides which level of evidence you need.
Where it’s used: Session 3, “Verbs decide your evidence” (35–40 min), then rewriting outcomes with matching evidence (40–58 min). Also the canvas rubric in the Evaluation Toolkit.
If someone pushes back: “It’s a framework for assessing doctors, not for planning teaching.” Reply: “It came from clinical assessment, yes. We only borrow one idea: if your outcome says ‘demonstrate’, a quiz can’t show it.”
Not in these sessions
Some theories in the library are not taught in these three sessions. If they come up, point people to the Theory Library.
- Psychological safety, debriefing with good judgement, and feedback are parked for a separate simulation-based session. If feedback comes up, Hattie and Timperley’s three questions are a good start: Where am I going? How am I going? Where to next? (Feedback and Feedforward)
- Maslow is no longer part of the programme. If someone raises it, note that the hierarchy has weak research support: a major review found little evidence for a fixed order of needs (Wahba & Bridwell 1976). (Hierarchy of Needs)
Part of Teaching That Lands, CC BY 4.0. If you disagree with any of this, good. Bring it to the session.