The Feynman Technique is a study method where you explain a topic in plain language, spot what you can't explain, then fix the gaps. Research shows this approach combines self-explanation and retrieval practice—two learning strategies with strong evidence backing them.
Summary
The Feynman Technique is a study method where you explain a topic in plain language, spot what you can't explain, then fix the gaps. It works because it combines self-explanation and retrieval practice, two learning strategies with strong research support. In a meta-analysis of 64 reports, self-explanation prompts improved learning with an overall effect size of g = 0.55. A large meta-analysis of testing vs. restudying found a median testing-effect size of g = 0.55 across 159 effect sizes from 61 studies. This guide shows the steps, a simple template, and how to use voice-to-text to catch unclear parts fast.
Key takeaways
- Explaining a topic is a learning strategy, not just a way to "check understanding." Self-explanation shows a moderate average benefit (g = 0.55).
- Testing yourself beats rereading in many settings; the median benefit across studies is around g = 0.55, and it tends to be larger after a delay (≥1 day).
- "Explain it to a beginner" is a useful constraint because it forces clear definitions, fewer hidden assumptions, and fewer memorized phrases.
Practice explaining out loud—capture every gap
VoiceScriber transcribes your explanations offline, so you can review exactly where you hesitated or used vague language.
Download VoiceScriberTable of contents
What is the Feynman Technique?
The Feynman Technique is a learning method where you explain a topic in simple language, find what you can't explain, then study those gaps and explain again. Many guides describe it as a short cycle: pick a concept, explain it simply, identify gaps, and refine the explanation.
The goal is not to sound smart. The goal is to make the explanation so clear that a beginner could follow it.
This method is especially useful for topics where understanding matters more than memorizing: systems, cause-and-effect, frameworks, and "why" questions.
What research supports the Feynman Technique?
The Feynman Technique is not one single lab-tested protocol with one official definition. It is a practical bundle of learning strategies that are well studied: self-explanation, retrieval practice, and learning-by-teaching.
Self-explanation improves understanding
Self-explanation means explaining ideas in your own words while you learn. It helps because you have to connect steps, causes, and definitions instead of just recognizing them.
A meta-analysis in Educational Psychology Review found that prompting learners to self-explain improved learning outcomes with an overall weighted mean effect size of g = 0.55.
In practice, "Explain it like I'm new" is a self-explanation prompt. It forces you to name assumptions and define terms.
Retrieval practice beats restudy in many cases
Retrieval practice means trying to pull information from memory. That can be practice questions, writing from memory, or giving an explanation without looking.
A meta-analysis in Psychological Bulletin reviewed 159 effect sizes from 61 studies and found a median testing-effect size of g = 0.55 for testing vs. restudying.
It also found that testing benefits tend to be larger after a delay: retention intervals of at least one day showed larger effects (reported as g = 0.69) than shorter intervals.
Learning by teaching works better when you expect to teach
Learning by teaching means preparing an explanation for someone else. It can help because you organize information into a coherent story.
A 2024 meta-analysis found an overall learning effect of teaching of g = 0.27, and a much larger benefit when learners studied with teaching expectancy first (about g = 0.48).
This matches the real-world feel of the Feynman Technique: you learn more when you act like you'll need to teach it.
Evidence snapshot with real numbers
- Self-explanation prompts: g = 0.55 (meta-analysis, 2018)
- Testing vs. restudy: median g = 0.55 across 159 effects (meta-analysis, 2014)
- Teaching after studying: g = 0.27 overall; with teaching expectancy g = 0.48 (meta-analysis, 2024)
- Learning-techniques meta-analysis: practice testing d = 0.74; self-explanation d = 0.54 (meta-analysis, 2021)
How to do it step by step in 15 minutes
This is a simple timer-based workflow you can repeat daily. The rule is: explain first, then look things up.
Step 1: Pick one small concept
Choose a concept that fits on one page. Small wins matter because the technique depends on repetition.
- Good: "What is an index in a database?"
- Too big: "How databases work"
Step 2: Explain it out loud in plain language
Give a 60–120 second explanation without notes. If you feel tempted to use jargon, pause and define the word.
- Start with: "X is…"
- Then: "It matters because…"
- Then: "A simple example is…"
Step 3: Mark the gaps with a single symbol
A gap is any sentence you can't finish clearly. Mark it with "??" and keep going.
- Don't stop to research mid-explanation.
- You need to see all your gaps at once.
Step 4: Patch the gaps using one trusted source
Fix only what you marked. This keeps the session focused.
- Look up the missing definition.
- Write a 1–2 sentence version in your own words.
- Add one example.
Step 5: Explain again, shorter
Repeat the explanation in half the time. Shorter usually means clearer.
This "explain → find gaps → explain again" cycle mirrors the self-explanation and retrieval mechanisms shown in meta-analyses.
A copy-paste Feynman template
Use this template in any notes app.
Topic: One-sentence definition: Why it matters: Simple example: Key parts (3–5 bullets): Common confusion: My explanation (as if teaching a beginner): ?? Gaps I found: Fixes (in my own words): Final 60-second explanation:
Tip: Keep "Key parts" to 3–5 bullets. More than 5 usually means the topic is too big for one session.
How to use voice-to-text to do the Feynman Technique faster
Voice-to-text helps because it captures your real explanation. When you read the transcript, vague parts and "hand-wavy" sentences stand out.
A simple iPhone workflow
- Record your explanation (60–120 seconds).
- Transcribe it so it becomes searchable text.
- Highlight "junk sentences" like "it basically works like…" without a real mechanism.
- Rewrite the weak sentences into short definitions and examples.
- Record again and compare versions.
Why this works for complex topics
Retrieval practice can support both retention and transfer when you do enough of it and measure after a delay. A 2025 study in Learning and Instruction found retrieval practice outperformed restudy on both repeated questions and application questions when learners had sufficient retrieval practice and a one-week delay.
That is a good match for the Feynman loop: short retrieval-based explanations, then a later re-explain session.
How to know your explanation is good enough
A good explanation is testable. You should be able to answer simple questions without changing the subject.
A 5-point clarity check
- Definition: Can I define it in one sentence?
- Mechanism: Can I explain how it works step by step?
- Example: Can I give a concrete example with numbers or specifics?
- Boundary: Can I say what it is not?
- Common mistake: Can I name one likely misunderstanding?
A simple metric you can track
Track how long it takes to explain clearly. If it drops from 2 minutes to 45 seconds while staying accurate, you likely improved your mental model.
Common mistakes and simple fixes
Mistake: Using familiar words instead of clear meaning
Jargon can hide gaps. Replace each technical term with a plain definition.
- Fix: Add "which means…" after every key term once.
Mistake: Only explaining the happy path
Real understanding includes failure cases. Add one "when it breaks" example.
- Fix: Write one sentence starting with "This fails when…"
Mistake: Thinking you learned because you recognized the answer
Recognition is not recall. Use a no-notes explanation first, then check sources after.
This lines up with why practice testing is rated highly in large reviews of learning techniques.
How to combine the Feynman Technique with spaced review
Spacing means revisiting the topic after time passes. It often improves retention compared with cramming.
A classic meta-analysis found 839 assessments of distributed practice across 317 experiments in 184 articles, showing a broad base of evidence for spacing effects.
A simple schedule you can actually follow
- Day 0: Feynman session (15 minutes)
- Day 1: Re-explain in 60 seconds (no notes)
- Day 7: Re-explain again and add one new example
Why include a delay? In Rowland's meta-analysis, testing benefits were larger when retention intervals were at least one day.
Glossary
- Self-explanation: Explaining ideas in your own words while learning, to build connections.
- Retrieval practice: Trying to recall information from memory rather than rereading it.
- Restudy: Reviewing the material again instead of recalling it.
- Teaching expectancy: Studying with the expectation that you will teach later; this can change how you learn.
- Distributed practice: Spreading learning sessions over time instead of cramming.
FAQ
Does the Feynman Technique work for memorization?
It can help, but it's best for understanding. For pure memorization, pair it with spaced retrieval like flashcards.
How long should one session take?
Start with 10–15 minutes. Short sessions are easier to repeat and force you to choose smaller topics.
Do I need a real person to teach?
No. Teaching "to an imaginary beginner" still forces structure and exposes gaps.
What if I keep getting stuck?
Make the topic smaller. If you can't define it in one sentence, it's probably too broad for one pass.
Is speaking better than writing?
Neither is always better. Speaking is faster and shows hesitation; writing is slower and forces precision. Using both is often best.