Cognitive science is an interdisciplinary field integrating psychology, neuroscience, computer science and anthropology to understand learning, memory and decision making. The field has undergone a high growth rate and is now ‘informing teachers, whole schools and even national policy’ (Scutt, 2020). For example, in England, every trainee and early career teacher (ECT) has an entitlement to learn about cognitive science and how to apply it (Twisleton et al, 2019; Department for Education, 2019). There are also 154 peer–reviewed journals dedicated to the field (Scrimago, n.d.). However, such enthusiasm does not ensure usefulness in the everyday classroom setting.
Overall, teachers are positive about cognitive science strategies (Perry et al, 2021); Goswami suggests this is rooted in neuromyths (2006) that persist today (Scutt, 2020). Of five classroom strategies identified by Perry et al, over 80% of respondents in England rated them as moderately important or higher. Eighty percent had received training in each strategy. Notably, 87% of respondents considered cognitive science as central to their approach and 86% thought robust scientific evidence supported the strategies; these data are likely to be elevated as the survey attracted those interested in cognitive science. The same document identifies significant diversity in how cognitive science strategies are applied and teachers face difficulties in understanding and implementing strategies (Perry et al, 2021). This is unsurprising as cognitive science is a complex field. Willingham warns that Principals are less confident in their teachers’ knowledge (Willingham, 2018).
When I was appointed, disparity in understanding of cognitive science was evident in my faculty. ‘Spaced retrieval’ activities focused on achieving correct answers rather than thinking hard. We are implementing a model where key ideas for each lesson are identified prior to teaching the topic. Retrieval opportunities are spaced out over time. This helps teachers engage with Ebbinhaus’s Forgetting Curve (Teach Like A Champion, n.d.) and curriculum content. A KS3 curriculum that explicitly identifies connections between content is also being constructed to support students in constructing rich schema with elaborate and strong connections. This replaces the traditional low-coherence KS3 Science curriculum. These approaches are impacting positively and enhancing everyday classroom practice.
The field is large and nebulous with nuanced ideas that require understanding and contextualisation (Turvey et al, 2019; Education Endowment Foundation (EEF), 2021); it is imperative that communications reflect this if implementation is to be effective. Using personal expertise, expert reviewers and extensive references, the Deans for Impact identify six questions linking cognitive science to everyday classroom practice that every teacher should be able to answer (Deans for Impact, 2015). They supported these with principles and classroom strategies. Notably, they attempted to engage teachers in thinking hard about how to apply cognitive science in their classroom.
In England, trainees and ECTs have an entitlement to learn about and how to implement principles from cognitive science (ITT Core Content Framework, 2019; Early Career Framework, 2019). There is a focus on limited aspects of cognitive science; this doesn’t necessarily fulfil the entitlement. According to Turvey et al, the entitlement is simplistic, limited in scope and lacks nuance. Usefulness to everyday classroom practice was questioned because the evidence used is limited by the EEF (2021). Similarly, Ofsted have included aspects in the Education Inspection Framework (Ofsted, 2022c) despite criticism (Muijs, 2019). Inspection reports also reference the impact of classroom practice on long-term memory LTM) (for example, Ofsted, 2022; Ofsted, 2022b). In contrast to the work of Deans for Impact, the simplistic treatment of complex ideas is unhelpful and could contribute to low-level application as schools/teachers attempt to satisfy frameworks.
The areas identified by the Deans for Impact are associated with everyday classroom practice (Education Endowment Foundation (EEF), 2021). For example, Sweller’s Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) (Sweller et al, 2019), explains selection of environmental information, processing alongside existing knowledge in the working memory (WM) before encoding and consolidation in the long-term memory (LTM). Understanding the nature and limitations of each component informs lesson planning so that efficient transfer of information into the LTM occurs and retention is high. Related to this, Ebbinhaus’s Forgetting Curve (Teach Like A Champion, n.d.) shows qualitatively that information can be lost from the LTM. However, a teacher that understands ‘power tools’ and plans their use, can embed knowledge more deeply than was originally achieved (Agarwal & Bain, 2019). Consideration of the social and emotional aspects of cognition could also result in increased learning (Perry et al, 2021). These areas have the potential to enhance everyday classroom practice, however, formal frameworks and poor understanding could prevent this.
The usefulness of cognitive science to everyday classroom practice is dependent upon the ecological validity and accessibility of research. Historically, the majority of relevant studies were laboratory-based (Perry et al 2021); ecological validity was low and so research needed careful interpretation. Agarwal, Nunes and Blunt call for an increase in applied research, because the impact of retrieval practice in the classroom is lower than in the laboratory (2021). The EEF agree for several reasons: a. Disconnects between laboratory evidence and classroom studies; b. applied cognitive science gives complex conclusions; c. the applied literature contains many gaps related to subjects, phases, cultures and age groups (Perry et al, 2021, p261). They concluded that, based on lack of evidence, “the education community should not change its practices substantially without further applied evidence and more thorough and rigorous investigation into how practice might best be adapted.” (Perry et al, 2021, p264). One solution is to engage teachers in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (Churches et al, 2020). However, this could influence effect sizes via the Hawthorne Effect (Agarwal et al, 2021).
Meta-analyses show a range of size effects, which are usually positive, for retrieval strategies studied in the classroom (Agarwal et al, 2021); however,95th percentile confidence intervals are large. The EEF review found a range of size effects with low confidence effects for strategies except some related to managing cognitive load. The reasons included lack of evidence, complex results, small population sizes and use of specific subjects or phases (Perry et al, 2021). Applied cognitive science studies have been performed in specific subjects and phases with small populations; whether the strategies would be effective in other contexts is unknown (Perry et al, 2021). They also tend to use students from WEIRD populations and so may not be generally applicable.
The usefulness of cognitive science to everyday classroom practice should reflect the impact on learning. Despite being enthusiastic, teachers don’t have a good understanding overall of cognitive science and how to implement it (Perry et al, 2021) and so impact is likely to be low; usefulness is likely to be isolated to those teachers who can access, understand and apply the research. Willingham says this is rare because it requires the teacher to develop skills, understanding of theory and the commitment to make it work (2019). In this respect, incorporating cognitive science into formal frameworks, albeit simplistically, will encourage learning and skill development. If Enser is correct in saying that cognitive principles reflect excellent teaching (2019) then their inclusion could expediate teacher development provided appropriate support is provided. However, we are only at the start of this journey.
The limited depth and breadth of applied cognitive science is a barrier to increasing usefulness. As this field develops (so increasing confidence measures) it could be applied more meaningfully by better informed teachers. However, research can not dictate what a teacher should do in every situation. Essentially, teaching a class is an organic wicked problem for which teacher responses must be bespoke and evolve. Current research gives answers to tamer (well defined questions with well defined answers) problems. So, for cognitive science to be useful, teachers need to be well informed and highly skilled so they can change their practice when required in a well-informed manner. This requires several conditions to be satisfied:
a. Teachers have autonomy to apply ideas and develop skills in the classroom; the research shouldn’t become a strait-jacket
b. A mechanism to facilitate interaction of education and research; for example, schools / MATs might appoint research leads
c. Academics and educators work together on projects as equals.
References
Agarwal, P. & P. Bain. (2019). Powerful teaching: Unleash the science of learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Agarwal, P. K., Nunes, L. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2021). Retrieval practice consistently benefits student learning: A systematic review of applied research in schools and classrooms. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 1409-1453.
Churches, R., Dommett, E., Devonshire, I. et al. (2020) Translating laboratory evidence into classroom practice with teacher-led randomised controlled trials – a perspective and meta-analysis. Mind, Brain and Education. 14(3): 292–302.
Coe, R. (2019). Does research on ‘retrieval practice’ translate into classroom practice? Retrieved August 21, 2022, from https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/news/does-research-on-retrieval-practice-translate-into-classroom-practice.
Deans for Impact (2015) The Science of Learning. Austin Tx: Deans for Impact (publication/guide) Available at: http://deansforimpact.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/The_Science_of_Learning.pdf (accessed 21 August 2022).
Department for Education, 2019. Early Career Framework.
Education Endowment Foundation. (2021, July). Cognitive science approaches in the classroom: A review of the evidence.
Enser M (2019) How useful is cognitive load theory for teachers? TES 10th October 2019 (article) Available at: https://www.tes.com/news/how-useful-cognitive-load-theory-teachers (accessed 21 August 2022)
Goswami, U. (2006). Neuroscience and education: from research to practice? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, Online, 2–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1907
Lemov, D. (2021). An Annotated Forgetting Curve. Available at https://teachlikeachampion.org/blog/an-annotated-forgetting-curve/ (accessed August 21, 2022).
Mansell, W. (2018). Why is Ofsted venturing so far into the detail of cognitive science? Available at https://neu.org.uk/blog/why-ofsted-venturing-so-far-detail-cognitive-science# (accessed August 21, 2022).
Muijs, D. (2019). Developing the education inspection framework: how we used cognitive load theory. Available at https://educationinspection.blog.gov.uk/2019/02/13/developing-the-education-inspection-framework-how-we-used-cognitive-load-theory/ (accessed August 21, 2022).
Ofsted. (2022). Inspection of Clacton Coastal Academy - Ofsted. Available at https://files.ofsted.gov.uk/v1/file/50185747 (accessed August 21, 2022).
Ofsted. (2022b). Inspection of a good school: Archbishop Tenison S cofe high school - ofsted. Available at https://files.ofsted.gov.uk/v1/file/50182880 (accessed August 21, 2022).
Ofsted. (2022c). Education inspection framework. GOV.UK. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/education-inspection-framework/education-inspection-framework (accessed August 21, 2022).
Perry, T., Lea, R., Jørgensen, C. R., Cordingley, P., Shapiro, K., & Youdell, D. (2021). Cognitive Science in the Classroom. London: Education Endowment Foundation (EEF).
Scutt C (2020) How much do teachers really need to know about the science of learning? Schools Week 20 January 2020 (online) Available at: https://schoolsweek.co.uk/how-much-do-teachers-really-need-to-know-about-the-science-of-learning/ (accessed 21 August 2022)
Scrimago. Journal rankings on experimental and Cognitive Psychology. (2022). Available at https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=3205 (accessed August 21, 2022).
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J.J.G. & Paas, F. Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design: 20 Years Later. Educ Psychol Rev 31, 261–292 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5
Turvey, K., Ellis, V., Watson, A., Slocombe, M., Kutnick, P., Cowley, S., & Frederick, K. (2019). Total recall? The ITE content framework, research and teachers’ understandings of learning . Available at https://www.bera.ac.uk/blog/total-recall-the-ite-content-framework-research-and-teachers-understandings-of-learning (accessed August 21, 2022).
Twisleton, S., Blake, J., Francis, B., Gill, R., Hamer, M., Hollis, E., R Moore, Noble Rogers, J. (2019). ITT Core Content Framework. Department for Education.
Willingham D (2018) Unlocking the science of how kids think. Education Next. Summer 2018. Vol.18 No.3 (online) Available at https://www.educationnext.org/unlocking-science-how-kids-think-new-proposal-for-reforming-teacher-education/ (accessed 21 August 2022)
Comments