An understanding of the “science of learning” provides educators and learners with an evidence-informed grounding in the key theories drawn from the fields of cognitive neuroscience and psychology. Essentially, the science of learning focuses on what learning is, why we do it, and how it happens. This field has attracted significant attention in recent years and features as part of initial teacher training and the Early Career Framework in England, not to mention being embraced by educators around the world.
In 2021, the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) published Cognitive Science Approaches In The Classroom: A Review of the Evidence. The report explains the distinction between basic and applied cognitive science:
“‘Basic’ cognitive science—seeks fundamental understanding of learning, memory, and the brain. It typically uses experiments in controlled conditions to establish knowledge that is likely to have wide applicability.
“‘Applied’ cognitive science—seeks to apply knowledge from basic cognitive science to solve practical problems. Here we are focused on cognitive science that is applied in the classroom that aims to improve learning of children and young people aged 3–18.”
The key distinction is the focus on the practical application of cognitive science principles and strategies in the classroom, in contrast to controlled conditions. When reviewing and reflecting on evidence, the context of the studies are relevant. Classrooms are very different to controlled environments, as every teacher is aware! If evidence is based on a study performed under controlled conditions with a specific focus (or involving a specific age group of individuals) how transferable are the findings for teachers in different classroom contexts?
Cindy Nebel has written about the potential problems researchers can encounter when attempting to carry out research, experiments and studies in a school environment. Nebel (2017) writes:
“Classrooms are messy research venues. There are numerous variables that we have no control over. We cannot control the motivation level of the students. In a laboratory, the students have somewhat equal motivation levels—their scores do not in any way affect whether or not they will receive credit for participating. … When we move outside the laboratory, we also have to consider that students are engaged with material outside of class. We might find that similar classes cause interference or confusion with what we are teaching (leading to a decrease in retention) while other classes may cause elaboration (leading to an increase in retention). Younger students in particular may have differences in the quality of help they get from their parents. And we haven’t even begun to talk about differences in teachers.”
Conducting research is complex and even more so in a classroom environment. Therefore, studies carried out in controlled conditions can have a greater influence over the variables and influences. It may be tempting for the teacher to dismiss “basic cognitive science” or not view it as relevant due to the conditions being so different from their own classroom, but the evidence can still be of value and provide insight.
Vast amounts of studies have been published that have been undertaken in classroom conditions and settings, this is applied cognitive science. Evidence from real life classroom environments may feel more relatable, and it is certainly important to conduct research in classrooms, but an awareness of the variables should be considered. A potential problem with applied cognitive science is once again to do with conditions and context. Every classroom is different—from the subject, key stage, school environment, geographical location and individuals within the classroom.
Furthermore, “real-world” classroom settings pose methodological headaches to researchers. Ideally, a researcher would set up a controlled experiment where a treatment group and a control group were identical in every way, except for the intervention being tests (i.e., a randomised controlled trial). This is near impossible to do in a school setting. As a result of this and other methodological choices, applied cognitive science conclusions often come with a load of caveats and seemingly mirky conclusions.
There are pros and cons to basic and applied cognitive science; teachers can learn and gain insight from both, it is the awareness of the context that is key. Any evidence that may inform a teacher’s practice is only a starting point. When applying any cognitive science to their practice, ever teacher needs to consider their context and their professional judgement. After all, this is what makes the science of learning into an effective tool.
Find out more about the ‘Science of Learning’ by completing the Science of Learning Programme as part of the Great Teaching Toolkit.
Additionally, you can download our free eBook ‘Understanding Memory and Learning’ from the Evidence Based Education resource library.
References:
Nebel, C. (2017). The big problem with classroom research. The Learning Scientists. https://www.learningscientists.org/blog/2017/10/5-1
Perry, T., Lea, R., Jørgensen, C. R., Cordingley, P., Shapiro, K., & Youdell, D. (2021). Cognitive Science in the Classroom. London: Education Endowment Foundation (EEF).
