Feature Too good to be true. An exploration of the limitations of cognitive science in the classroom

TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE. AN EXPLORATION OF THE LIMITATIONS OF COGNITIVE SCIENCE IN THE CLASSROOM

Cognitive science is a hot topic among teachers at present. Here Alex Greenfield, Head of English, considers the pitfalls of blindly applying its assumed principles in the classroom.

Without doubt, cognitive science is having a ‘moment’ in the educational spotlight. In 2017, Dylan Wiliam tweeted that 'Sweller's Cognitive Load Theory is the single most important thing for teachers to know', with other educational theorists and practitioners, including Tom Sherrington, likewise reinforcing its potential to transform teaching. Teacher-researcher Oliver Lovell lauded the Cognitive Load Theory as an 'incredibly rich and powerful model' that could 'fundamentally' change teaching and learning.1 Concurrently, a wave of educational literature, some more grounded in substantive research than others, has been published exploring the application of cognitive science in the classroom.

Indeed, so pervasive is its influence that, as pointed out by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF), the assumed principles of cognitive science are already having an impact on teaching policy, with the 2019 Ofsted framework explicitly referencing its effectiveness in the classroom2. In a survey conducted by the EEF, 'over 85% of respondents said that cognitive science strategies were central to their own approach to teaching'3 and some of the key principles are being taught as part of the Early Career Framework to all new teachers. This includes those following the ECF programme written and developed here at STAHS.

Such a buzz has no doubt popularised the theory; however, as with any trending theory of education, its nuances can easily be lost in the rush to keep up with swinging trends in education. Consequently, we as a profession can become blinkered to the potential pitfalls of blindly applying the assumed principles of cognitive science in the classroom. This article will explore just some of these pitfalls; however, given that cognitive science encompasses, in itself, an incredibly broad range of approaches and practices (including retrieval practice, interleaving, dual coding, and modelling to name but a few), this article is written with the intention of simply starting a conversation, rather than as a full and complete review of the opportunities and limitations of the theory.

According to The Royal Society, cognitive science aims to 'characterise the mechanisms of learning and the sources of individual difference in learning ability … [to] help assess the performance and impact of different educational approaches'4 Educational researcher Professor Pooja Agarwal defines cognitive science as 'inside’ thinking'; that is, using science to interrogate the processes by which we learn, remember, and make decisions.5 The importance of these processes for pupils in education would suggest that a good understanding of cognitive science could enhance teaching practice, perhaps exponentially, and, consequently, suggests that teachers should know about it and should use it in their classrooms. However, such a black and white approach carries its own dangers.

Despite the many purported benefits of using cognitive science in the classroom, Daniel Willingham points out: 'The extent to which teachers understand cognitive science and the extent to which they need to understand it is debatable'.6 Willingham warns against the application of 'abstract theory at the expense of practical knowledge'.7 He argues that a 'lack of basic [cognitive] science [in lessons] doesn’t mean practice is bad', citing 'professional judgement' as a means of assessing lesson quality.8 In support, Brookman-Byrne and Thomas state that 'being prescriptive [with cognitive science practices] will interfere with a teacher’s professional autonomy' suggesting that, instead, 'providing new tools and information drawn from scientific research will enable teachers to choose the most appropriate method … within their own classroom.'

Indeed, an unquestioning blanket approach to cognitive science across all subjects and abilities can lead to lethal mutations; instances when the theory is incorrectly understood or oversimplified leading to a reduction in impact or even a negative effect on pupil progress (for more, see EEF 2021, page 11).

A further important consideration is to what extent particular practices apply to all learners. Citing Dunlosky et al., Robert Coe points out that 'many studies' of retrieval practice, for example, 'focus on "relatively simple verbal materials"… and some cognitive scientists have questioned whether retrieval improves performance in complex tasks.'10 Cat Scutt, Director of Education and Research at the Chartered College of Teaching, also recognises this, highlighting that 'research on the expertise reversal effect suggests that the approaches that are most effective with novice learners may be less effective when working with more expert ones.'11 This is also true when considering Cognitive Load Theory. Professor Slava Kalyuga acknowledges this potential pitfall, writing that 'the level of cognitive load and its classification as intrinsic or extraneous load are relative to the learner’s expertise level. Therefore, the effectiveness of the same learning materials will vary as a result of different levels of prior knowledge.'12

Furthermore, in their review of the literature surrounding cognitive science, the EEF noted that 'much of this evidence comes from studies in the psychology laboratory or from researcher-led trials',13 not necessarily from ‘everyday’ classroom practice in ‘everyday’ classrooms. They also state that the evidence produced about the effectiveness of certain practices, most notably interleaving, have almost 'exclusively been tested in one subject area (mathematics).'14 While this is certainly hugely promising and important for teachers of maths (and also, in many cases, science) it should lead us, as critical professionals, to question the supposed effectiveness in our own classrooms. As with all things in education, context is key.

Considering all this, then, it may seem that cognitive science presents more challenges than opportunities, however to rule it out completely based only on the fact that it may be fallible in certain contexts risks missing out on the many benefits it may and can provide. There is a swathe of evidence that suggests that 'cognitive science principles of learning can have a real impact on rates of learning in the classroom' and that 'there is value in teachers having working knowledge of cognitive science principles.'15

The key to understanding how to make best use of such theory is to apply professional judgement when considering the context in which the learning is taking place. Neuromyths must be dispelled and lethal mutations corrected. Simultaneously, complex scientific theory must be translated into practical activities that can be used in classrooms. In educating ourselves about both the opportunities and limitations of any theory of education, we are consequently much better placed to make the best decisions in our classrooms, ultimately enabling us to strive for the very best outcomes for our pupils.

1 Lovell, 2020, 15. 2 Ofsted, 2019, 19. 3 EEF, 2021, 5. 4 Royal Society, 2011. 5 Agarwal, 2020. 6 Willingham, 2019. 7 Willingham, 2018. 8 Willingham, 2019. 9 Brookman-Byrne and Thomas, 2018. 10 Coe, 2019. 11 Scutt, 2020. 12 Kalyuga, 2020. 13 EEF, 2021, 6. 14 EEF, 2021, 7. 15 EEF, 2021, 7.

References:

Agarwal, P., 2020. How useful is cognitive science for everyday classroom practice? [webinar]. Available at: https://mypd.chartered.college/login/ index.php#section-6. Brookman-Byrne, A. and Thomas, M., 2018. Neuroscience, psychology and education: Emerging links. Impact (March 2018). Available at: https:// my.chartered.college/impact_article/neuroscience-psychology-and-education-emerging-links. Coe, Prof. R., 2019. Does research on 'retrieval practice' translate into classroom practice?. Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) Blog. Available at: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/news/does-research-on-retrieval-practice-translate-into-classroom-practice. Education Endowment Foundation, 2021. Cognitive science approaches in the classroom: a review of the evidence. Available at: https://d2tic4wvo1iusb.cloudfront.net/documents/guidance/Cognitive_science_approaches_in_the_classroom_-_A_review_of_the_evidence. pdf?v=1629124457. Kalyuga, S., 2020. Expertise reversal effect and its instructional implications. Impact. Available at: https://my.chartered.college/impact_article/ expertise-reversal-effect-and-its-instructional-implications. Ofsted, 2019. Education inspection framework: overview of research. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/education-inspectionframework-overview-of-research. Scutt, C., 2020. How much do teachers really need to know about the science of learning? Schools Week. Available at: https://schoolsweek.co.uk/ how-much-do-teachers-really-need-to-know-about-the-science-of-learning. The Royal Society, 2011. Neuroscience: implications for education and lifelong learning. Available at: https://royalsociety.org/-/media/Royal_ Society_Content/policy/publications/2011/4294975733.pdf. Willingham, D., 2019. Ask the cognitive scientist: should teachers know the basic science of how children learn? American Educator. Available at: www.aft.org/ae/summer2019/willingham. Willingham, D., 2018. Unlocking the science of how kids think. Education Next 18(3). Available at: www.educationnext.org/unlocking-science-howkids-think-new-proposal-for-reforming-teacher-education.