Nathaniel Hansford, author of The Scientific Principles of Teaching: Bridging the Divide Between Educational Practice and Research, has taught every grade from preK to 12 in many interesting and diverse locations—from South Korea to the subarctic of Quebec. 
He specializes in using meta-analysis research to help teachers implement proven methodologies. In this blog, Nathaniel explains how teacher efficacy improves when teachers engage with educational research meaningfully.
Q: You’ve taught in such a wide variety of locations—how have those international experiences shaped your approach to education?
NH: Teaching abroad really helped me grow as a teacher, and honestly, I would recommend it to any new grad coming out of teacher’s college. Every country approaches education a little differently—culturally, structurally, and philosophically—and there’s something valuable to learn from all of it. When I taught in South Korea, for example, there was a strong focus on explicit instruction and rote memorization. But the teaching wasn’t dry or rigid—in fact, it was often more engaging than what I’d seen elsewhere.
Teachers regularly used game-based learning to make that memorization fun and interactive. That experience stuck with me. Even now, my own teaching style blends clear, explicit instruction with games and interactive elements to keep students involved and excited to learn.
Q: What drew you to meta-analysis research as a tool for improving teaching practice?
NH: I think I just got tired of the noise. In education, there’s always a new method, book, or blog claiming to be backed by science or promising to revolutionize teaching and teacher efficacy. It gets overwhelming fast. What I needed was a way to step back and look at the bigger picture—to ask, “Okay, but what does most of the research say?” That’s what drew me to meta-analysis. Instead of putting all my trust in one study, I started relying on research that looks across dozens (or even hundreds) of studies to find consistent trends. For me, it’s been a much more practical and reliable way to figure out what actually works in the classroom.
Q: Can you share an example of a specific finding from a meta-analysis that had a big impact on your teaching or writing?
NH: For a long time, I was a big believer in teaching spelling through memorizing weekly word lists. That’s how I learned to spell as a kid, and I stuck with it for years in my own classroom. I even advocated for it in my first education book, which I wrote in 2018 and self-published in 2020. But then I came across a 2020 meta-analysis by Katharina Galuschka and colleagues that really challenged that thinking.
It showed that phonics instruction had three times the impact on spelling outcomes, and that morphology instruction had almost four times the impact. That research made it pretty clear: There are way more effective ways to teach spelling than having kids spend hours memorizing lists. It pushed me to rethink my practice and update my writing to reflect what the research actually supports.
Q: You’ve written extensively on the science of teaching—what message do you hope most resonates with educators?
NH: Honestly, one of the biggest reasons I wrote this book was to promote a sense of self-efficacy among teachers. I think, as a profession, we’ve become a bit too reliant on outside experts—partly because we’ve been led to believe that we can’t build that expertise ourselves. Don’t get me wrong, I respect academia and value good research. But I’ve lost count of the times I’ve met someone with just a couple of years of classroom experience presenting themselves as an authority on teacher efficacy and how teachers should teach, all based on research that’s often more philosophical than scientific.
That’s why my book doesn’t just summarize large bodies of research—it also walks teachers through how the research was conducted and how to interpret it. I want teachers to feel empowered to evaluate claims critically and decide for themselves what’s actually valid and worth using. If there’s one message I hope comes through loud and clear, it’s that teachers are smart, capable professionals who can engage with research meaningfully—and that doing so can make a real difference for their students.
Q: What inspired you to write The Scientific Principles of Teaching?
NH: When I was teaching in the far north, many of my students came from communities that had been deeply affected by systemic barriers. There was a clear achievement gap, and I felt a responsibility to do better—for them and for myself as their teacher. Around that time, I was introduced to John Hattie’s research by a response to intervention (RTI) trainer, and it completely changed the way I saw things. I hadn’t realized before that you could synthesize education research in such a practical, structured way. It gave me hope that we could use evidence to drive better outcomes and work toward more equitable learning environments.
I still remember reading a study that found teachers who believed all their students were capable of higher achievement actually saw significantly better results. That really stuck with me. I started doing weekly formative assessments and tracking learning data, and it was humbling—what I was doing wasn’t working. So I began trying out strategies backed by research, and my students’ outcomes improved dramatically. That was the turning point. Up until then, I thought I was a good teacher and assumed my results were mostly about my students’ abilities. But that experience taught me that my teaching had to adapt to meet my students’ needs—and that it could.
Nathaniel’s final thoughts
Writing this book was my way of trying to share that realization with others: that teachers can make a huge difference, and that by engaging with research, we can take real ownership of our students’ success.
Is boosting teacher efficacy and finding new ways to make a powerful impact on students on your to-do list? Let us help you out with these hand-picked blogs for further reading:
