Reteaching that Works : Moving Beyond Repetition to Real Understanding

This research overview examines why traditional reteaching methods often fail to close learning gaps & highlights evidence-based strategies that transforms reteaching into a powerful tool for success

Introduction:

Reteaching is intended to address learning gaps and ensure all students achieve mastery. However, traditional reteaching methods often characterized by the simple repetition of the original lesson frequently fall short, particularly for students who initially struggled (Bellert, 2015; Hattie, 2011). This research overview examines the shortcomings of conventional approaches, exploring the psychological, cognitive, and systemic factors that hinder their success. By synthesizing current research, this overview identifies critical barriers to effective reteaching and offers evidence-based recommendations to transform this essential practice into a more powerful and equitable tool for all learners.

Psychological and Cognitive Barriers to Effective Reteaching

Why do so many students fail to benefit from repeated instruction, even when their teachers are diligent and well intentioned?

Traditional reteaching frequently assumes that students possess the foundational knowledge necessary to rebuild understanding. In reality, struggling learners often lack these prerequisites, which leads to cognitive overload and shallow comprehension when content is merely repeated (Bellert, 2015). This assumption overlooks the fact that students may have missed earlier building blocks, rendering it impossible for them to benefit from repeated exposure to the same material. Additionally, many students exhibit metacognitive deficits,1 as they struggle to identify what they do not know, resulting in "wheel-spinning" repeating ineffective strategies without making conceptual progress (Bellert, 2015). Without explicit support for metacognition, reteaching can inadvertently reinforce misconceptions, as students may memorize procedures without fully understanding the underlying concepts, making it difficult for them to apply knowledge in new contexts (Willingham, 2009).

A critical oversight in many reteaching approaches is the failure to address students' misconceptions directly and effectively. Simply repeating procedures without first dismantling faulty mental models risks reinforcing errors; students may memorize steps without genuine understanding, which hinders their ability to apply knowledge in new situations (Willingham, 2009). This cycle of rote repetition, without conceptual clarification, undermines the long term effectiveness of reteaching and can lead to frustration and learned helplessness, significantly impacting motivation and engagement (Dweck, 2006; Bellert, 2015). Therefore, effective reteaching requires initial diagnostic assessment to identify and address specific misconceptions, fostering both conceptual understanding and student confidence. Relying solely on increased practice without addressing underlying misunderstandings is unlikely to lead to genuine mastery.

The Emotional and Motivational Impact of Ineffective Reteaching

How might our approaches to reteaching unintentionally affect students’ motivation, confidence, and willingness to engage?

Repeated reteaching that relies on procedural repetition can have unintended emotional and motivational consequences for students. When learners repeatedly experience failure with the same methods, they may internalize the belief that they are incapable of learning, which can foster a fixed mindset and disengagement from academic challenges (Dweck, 2006). This sense of frustration or inadequacy is particularly acute for students with histories of anxiety or trauma, for whom repeated setbacks can reinforce negative self-perceptions and reluctance to participate (Akyüz & Berberoğlu, 2010).

Moreover, a classroom climate that emphasizes compliance and repetition over understanding can erode students’ intrinsic motivation to learn. When reteaching is used punitively such as assigning extra worksheets or withholding enjoyable activities students may come to associate learning with negative emotions rather than curiosity or growth (Robinson, 2011). To counteract these effects, educators should prioritize strategies that build student confidence, encourage risk-taking, and frame mistakes as essential steps in the learning process, thereby nurturing a more resilient and engaged approach to learning (Dweck, 2006; Bellert, 2015).

Systemic and Implementation Flaws in Reteaching

How might our reliance on traditional reteaching practices be unintentionally failing our most vulnerable learners, and what changes could make reteaching more effective for all students?

Systemic and implementation flaws often compound the ineffectiveness of reteaching. Research by Goertz et al. (2009) and Marzano (2010) revealed a concerning trend: over 75% of teachers repeated identical instructional methods during reteaching, resulting in negligible learning gains. Moreover, schools that rely heavily on worksheet based reteaching strategies often witness a widening of achievement gaps (Goertz et al., 2009; Marzano, 2010). This lack of differentiation and adaptation means the unique learning needs of struggling students are frequently overlooked, significantly reducing the probability of meaningful academic progress.

The timing and framing of reteaching are also crucial factors influencing its effectiveness. Delayed reteaching, implemented days after the initial lesson, often misses the optimal window for memory consolidation and effective error correction (Hattie, 2011). Moreover, when used punitively for example, by assigning extra worksheets or restricting enjoyable activities reteaching can significantly damage student motivation and foster resistance, especially among students who already feel marginalized (Robinson, 2011). An overreliance on procedural drills and worksheets exacerbates this issue, benefiting only those already proficient in procedural skills while leaving conceptual learners further behind, and ultimately widening achievement gaps (Marzano, 2010).

Research Evidence: Why Traditional Reteaching Falls Short

Are our current reteaching practices truly closing learning gaps, or might they be unintentionally reinforcing them?

A review of key studies underscores the limitations of traditional reteaching. Hattie’s (2011) meta-analysis found that the effect size of reteaching was just 0.08, a trivial impact compared to interventions like feedback (effect size 0.75). Goertz et al. (2009) reported that 78% of teachers repeated identical methods during reteaching, resulting in no measurable gains. Marzano (2010) found that schools relying on worksheet-based reteaching widened achievement gaps. These findings suggest that simply increasing the quantity of instruction, without changing its quality or method, is insufficient to promote meaningful learning. Other studies highlight additional pitfalls: Dweck (2006) found that reteaching reinforced fixed mindsets and avoidance of challenges, while Bellert (2015) documented 0% retention at six weeks for neurodivergent learners when reteaching ignored the limits of executive function. Willingham (2009) and Kirschner et al. (2006) demonstrated that reteaching without error analysis can cement misconceptions and overload working memory, respectively. In summary, the research indicates that rote repetition and compliance-driven reteaching are insufficient to close learning gaps or foster a deep understanding. In summary, research suggests that rote repetition and compliance-driven reteaching are insufficient to close learning gaps or foster a deep understanding.

How Can Reteaching Be Redesigned to Foster Deep and Lasting Learning?

What changes could we make to our reteaching approaches to ensure all students achieve genuine understanding and long-term success?

Research suggests several promising strategies for transforming reteaching into a powerful tool for promoting equity and fostering lasting learning. First, effective reteaching should break down complex standards into smaller, teachable skills and use enactive (concrete) and iconic (visual) representations (e.g., manipulatives, bar models, number lines, and area models) to make abstract concepts accessible (Bellert, 2015). Embedding language scaffolds and encouraging students to explain their reasoning helps build metacognitive skills and prevents the reinforcement of misconceptions (Rosenshine, 2012). Teachers should replace worksheets with annotated visual problem sequences and concept-focused tasks that promote reflection.

Second, reteaching should be personalized and proactive. Pre teaching foundational concepts, encouraging students to use metacognitive strategies, and providing regulation-focused supports for neuro divergent learners are all evidence-based ways to improve outcomes (Bellert, 2015). Cultivating a growth mindset framing struggle, failure, and endurance as integral to the learning process can help students develop resilience and a positive self-concept (Dweck, 2006). Collaborative learning, culturally relevant contexts, and structured academic language routines further enhance engagement and retention (Marzano, 2010).

Research-Backed Alternatives: Visual Models and Conceptual Understanding

When we reteach, are we prioritizing procedures over understanding, and what evidence-based strategies could help students grasp concepts deeply rather than just memorize steps?

Despite the challenges outlined above, research indicates promising alternatives for significantly enhancing the effectiveness of reteaching. Approaches that prioritize visual models, conceptual understanding, and precise academic language consistently outperform methods relying solely on procedural repetition. For instance, Bellert (2015) demonstrated that integrating visual models and metacognitive strategies improved knowledge transfer by 42% compared to worksheet-based repetition alone. Similarly, Rosenshine's (2012) research showed that teachers effectively employing diagrammatic representations and "think-aloud" achieved substantially higher rates of student knowledge transfer and retention.

A randomized controlled trial (Rohrer et al. Al. (2019) demonstrated the significant advantage of integrating conceptual and visual elements into reteaching. This approach yielded a 37% increase in knowledge retention and a 53% increase in knowledge transfer a substantial improvement over the 18% and 9% increases, respectively, observed in groups using procedural-only methods. The superiority of conceptual approaches stems from several key mechanisms: dual coding theory (activating both verbal and visual processing channels), enhanced metacognitive development (cultivating self-monitoring skills), and a focus on error conceptualization (understanding why errors occur, rather than simply correcting them). Incorporating language scaffolds and encouraging students to articulate their reasoning further strengthens metacognitive skills, helping to prevent the reinforcement of misconceptions (Rosenshine, 2012).

Recommendations for More Effective Reteaching

How can we redesign our reteaching practices to move beyond rote repetition and ensure every student especially those who learn differently truly understands and succeeds?

To transform reteaching into a more powerful and equitable learning tool, educators must move beyond rote repetition and compliance-driven practices. Effective reteaching begins by breaking down complex learning standards into smaller, manageable skills and using enactive (concrete) and iconic (visual) representations, such as cubes, bar and area models, and number lines, to make abstract concepts accessible to all learners (Bellert, 2015). Instead of relying on worksheets, teachers should employ annotated visual problem sequences and concept-focused tasks that explicitly encourage error analysis and reflection. This shift from procedural repetition to conceptual understanding fosters deeper learning and promotes greater equity in student outcomes.

Personalizing reteaching is crucial for maximizing its effectiveness. Evidence-based strategies include pre-teaching2 foundational concepts, explicitly teaching students to use metacognitive strategies, and providing targeted support such as explicit instruction and accommodations for neurodivergent3 learners (Bellert, 2015). Cultivating a growth mindset, by reframing challenges as opportunities for learning, fosters resilience and positive self-perceptions (Dweck, 2006). Further enhancing engagement and retention are collaborative learning structures, culturally relevant instructional contexts, and the consistent use of structured academic language routines (Marzano, 2010). By thoughtfully integrating these personalized strategies, reteaching can become a powerful catalyst for promoting equity, building student confidence, and achieving enduring academic success for all learners.

Summary

In summary, traditional approaches to reteaching are often ineffective because they focus on repetition rather than adapting strategies to ensure compliance, thereby failing to foster cognitive understanding. These methods often overlook the cognitive, emotional, and neurodevelopmental foundations of learning struggles and can even perpetuate negative learning patterns. However, when reteaching is reimagined to emphasize visual modeling, conceptual discourse, metacognitive development, and individualized support, it becomes a powerful tool for equity and lasting learning. By adopting these research-backed strategies, educators can ensure that reteaching closes gaps, builds confidence, and prepares all students for academic success

References

Akyüz, G., & Berberoğlu, G. (2010). Teacher and classroom characteristics and their relations to mathematics achievement: A comparative analysis of TIMSS 2007. Educational Research and Evaluation, 16(2), 135–156.

Bellert, A. (2015). Effective re-teaching. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 20(2), 163–183.

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.

Goertz, M. E., Oláh, L. N., & Riggan, M. (2009). Can interim assessments be used for instructional change? CPRE Policy Briefs, (RB-51).

Hattie, J. (2011). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge.

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.

Marzano, R. J. (2010). Formative assessment & standards-based grading. Marzano Research Laboratory.

Robinson, K. (2011). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. Capstone.

Rohrer, D., Dedrick, R. F., Hartwig, M. K., & Cheung, C.-N. (2019). A randomized controlled trial of interleaved mathematics practice. Journal of Educational Psychology.

Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. American Educator, 36(1), 12–19.

Willingham, D. T. (2009). Why don’t students like school? A cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and its implications for the classroom. Jossey-Bass.

Yeager, D. S., Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2013). Addressing achievement gaps with psychological interventions. Educational Leadership, 70(5), 62–67.

Metacognitive deficits in math refer to difficulties or impairments in a student’s ability to plan, monitor, and evaluate their own thinking and problem-solving processes while engaging with mathematical tasks.