Cognitive Sciences Applied In Education 2024-2025 PDF

COGNITIVE SCIENCES APPLIED IN EDUCATION 2024-2025 1 The present course material is based on the Education Endowment Foundation Report Cognitive Science in the classroom, authors Perry, T., Lea, R., Jørgensen, C. R., Cordingley, P., Shapiro, K., & Youdell, D. (2021). Th...

COGNITIVE SCIENCES APPLIED IN EDUCATION 2024-2025 1 The present course material is based on the Education Endowment Foundation Report Cognitive Science in the classroom, authors Perry, T., Lea, R., Jørgensen, C. R., Cordingley, P., Shapiro, K., & Youdell, D. (2021). The report is available in an extended format from: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/evidence summaries/evidencereviews/cognitive-science-approaches-in-the-classroom/ The current content presents the main approaches to teaching and learning informed by cognitive science that are commonly used in the classroom, with a particular focus on acquiring and retaining knowledge. This focus reflects the areas of cognitive science which have to date been the most influential for classroom practice and ostensibly have the most general application across the education sector. While there are numerous formulations and accounts of crucial techniques informed by cognitive science relating to acquiring and retaining knowledge, the following concepts are the most widely known and were included in the present resource: ▪ spaced practice; ▪ interleaving; ▪ retrieval practice; ▪ (strategies to manage) cognitive load ▪ working with schemas ▪ cognitive theory of multimedia learning 2  BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE Cognitive science, policy, and practice Learning sciences form an interdisciplinary field that draws on cognitive science, educational psychology, computer science, anthropology, sociology, information sciences, neurosciences, education, instructional design, and numerous other areas (Sawyer, 2006). The central role of cognition in learning, and the brain’s role in processing and storing information, arguably places cognitive science at the heart of the learning sciences. Thus, many influential publications aimed at practitioners focus on cognitive science. Two areas of cognitive science have been especially influential in education: ▪ cognitive psychology—concerned with mental processes including perception, thinking memory, attention, and learning; cognitive psychology is underpinned by interpretive, behavioural, and observational methods; ▪ cognitive neuroscience—concerned with the brain and the biological processes that underlie cognition; cognitive neuroscience is underpinned by brain imaging technologies such as electrophysiology (EEG) and functional imaging (fMRI). For many decades, the dominant science for informing education practice has been cognitive psychology. Multiple publications directed at educators and a lay public aim to make accessible lessons for learning drawn from cognitive and educational psychology (for recent examples, see Weinstein, Sumeracki and Caviglioli, 2018; Kirschner and Hendrick, 2020; also see Deans for Impact, 2015; Pashler et al., 2007). More recently, neuroscience research has gathered a great deal of momentum, not least because of the advent of new imaging technologies that enable much finer-grained research; strong claims are made for the application of educational neuroscience (Goswami, 2006; Howard-Jones, 2014) or ‘neuro-education’ (Arwood and Meridith, 2017). Again, there is a body of publications focused on the implications of the science for classroom practice (for example, Tibke, 2019; Jensen and McConchie, 2020). Practice-focused accounts of cognitive science have proved highly influential for educators looking for a scientific basis to inform and improve their practice. Both areas of cognitive science are currently and increasingly informing interventions, practice, and policy in education. Of particular interest to education has been basic cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience research in brain structure and function, motivation and reward, short-term (or working) and long-term memory, and cognitive load. Cognitive science forms a key part of the evidence underpinning the Ofsted Education Inspection Framework (Ofsted, 2019). Ofsted reports ‘moderate to strong evidence of practices that can be used to enhance 3 learning across phases and remits’; it refers to strategies including spaced practice, interleaving, retrieval practice, elaboration, and dual coding and discusses the ‘important contribution’ of cognitive load theory (Ofsted, 2019, p.19). This commitment to cognitive science is also evident across the UK National Professional Qualifications frameworks and across the current Teaching Standards for early career teachers and the associated early career teacher training programmes; there are clear expectations that newly qualified teachers will be well informed about cognitive science—particularly concerning cognition and information storage and retrieval (memory)—and that they will develop skills to apply this knowledge in the classroom. Learning concepts derived from cognitive science vary in the extent to which they enjoy consensus in the scientific community regarding the science and its educational implications. The basic research into cognitive load, for example, is well-established, drawing on behavioural psychology and a conceptual amalgamation of cognitive load and attention applied to educational principles of learning (for overviews, see de Jong, 2010; Sweller, 2016). It is yet, however, to be tested by the latest imaging neuroscience techniques. Furthermore, whether understanding of cognitive load in brain function and activity over very short (sub-second) units of time can be mobilised effectively to inform planning and delivery of teaching and learning that takes place over substantially larger units of time, and in a way that will have a measurable beneficial effect, remains to be demonstrated. Practice informed by cognitive science Cognitive science is gaining increasing influence in education and a multitude of existing and developing classroom practices are currently described as being ‘informed’ or ‘inspired' by cognitive science. Some warn against the over- or mis-interpretation of cognitive science evidence for use in education (Alferink and Farmer-Dougan, 2010) and the risk of ‘neuromyths’ (Howard-Jones, 2014, 2018; Purdy, 2008), especially for commercial educational products claiming a basis in neuroscience. Insights from cognitive science have the potential to both displace, complement, and add to complex and varied understandings of effective classroom practice. Within schools, many techniques that are currently described as inspired by cognitive science may have been practised previously using a different rationale, including ones drawing on cognitive science. Techniques currently being described as inspired by cognitive science may have been practiced previously by ‘hunch’ (for example, quizzes) rather than being explicitly informed by cognitive science. Many of these resonate with established understandings of effective pedagogy and some may have been practised by teachers previously with no specific reference to cognitive science (Alferink and Farmer-Dougan, 2010; Willis, 2009). Cognitive 4 science, as well as potentially identifying new or improved practices, can also provide a shared understanding and common language about existing techniques and help establish why some commonly used teaching methods work or do not. Like all learning theories, ideas from cognitive science must be applied to specific subjects, phases, students, and learning contexts. Basic science and applied science One of the most powerful reasons for looking to cognitive science to inform education is that it seeks to offer robust evidence that reveals something fundamental about memory, learning, and the brain. This growing understanding will not necessarily or automatically yield valuable insights for classroom practice; the extent to which findings from controlled settings such as laboratories are applicable in real classrooms remains to be seen. On the one hand, understanding the fundamentals of learning will (or so the argument goes) be highly applicable across contexts (that is, have high external validity) as humans share the same basic cognitive architecture and utilise the same cognitive processes during learning experiences. On the other hand, the context in which the basic scientific evidence is produced—often controlled settings such as the laboratory—can be far removed from the classroom teaching and learning context it looks to inform ; it has, in other words, low ‘ecological validity’— validity in real classrooms, across the curriculum, and for different pupil groups. Evidence from basic science can (a) require a greater degree of translation to get the strategy working in practice and (b) potentially be reductive through experimental control when isolating principles and the effects of specific strategies. Put simply, teaching and learning ‘set pieces’ delivered by researchers, designed to focus on one cognitive process, may not work well in the hands of real teachers negotiating the demanding and complex contexts and problems of real classroom environments. In our view, there is value in considering both applied and basic science side-by-side when looking to support and inform classroom practice. We share the enthusiasm of many teachers and researchers in the potential insights and understanding from basic science. We do not, however, assume that basic science necessarily or easily translates into effective classroom practice. In short, something that works in the laboratory may, or may not, work well in the classroom. A vital purpose of this review is to make this distinction and examine the evidence from the classroom. The focus of this review is a systematic review of the applied science and, in particular, evidence from ecologically-valid classroom trials of strategies that are informed by cognitive science. We want to know whether cognitive science techniques work in real classrooms, across the curriculum, and for different pupil groups. Several challenges are apparent with the current state of applied cognitive science literature and practice: 5 ▪ many techniques require considerable translation for application to the classroom; ▪ the research and practice of translation is emergent and variegated, with particularly rapid change in the last few years; ▪ it cannot be taken for granted that techniques with firm foundations in the basic science will be, or are being, successfully applied in effective interventions and practices in the classroom: initial evidence demonstrating successful application is mixed; ▪ the extent to which emerging practice has fidelity to the underlying cognitive science is unclear; and ▪ education research offers incomplete understandings of the influences on, and mechanisms of, learning (Youdell and Lindley, 2018); how cognitive science informed practice relates to this research and existing methods, including other evidence-informed approaches, is unclear. These issues bring into focus the value of applying and testing cognitive science principles in realistic classroom settings and of exploring the connections between cognitive science theory and practice. Notes! A focus on ‘cognitive science informed strategies for acquiring and retaining knowledge’ might conceivably include classroom strategies relating to social and emotional aspects of learning, or physical or social factors supporting cognition. These aspects are not the object of the present paper. High priority studies – studies deemed to have high potential as a basis for judgements about strategy effectiveness. They provide direct and consistent evidence (in terms of relevance and ecological validity) to evaluate the impact of cognitive science strategies in educational context. They will be presented in a more detailed way in the present review. Interviews - The material incorporates, for illustrative purposes, opinions and perspectives from teachers interviewed by the report's authors regarding the application of strategies in practical and ecological contexts. I have included them in this material to aid in understanding the content. They are not meant to be memorized 6 1. SPACED LEARNING Overview of area Definitions ‘Spaced learning’ applies the principle that material is more easily learnt when separated by an interstudy interval (ISI). ISIs can be very brief (seconds or minutes) or very long (weeks or months). Spaced learning is also referred to as ‘spaced practice’, ‘distributed practice’, ‘distributed learning’, and the ‘spacing effect’. A number of scientific theories have been proposed to explain the benefit of spacing for long-term retention, though they often lack substantiation in applied contexts. One school of thought proposes that ISIs may facilitate the consolidation of memories—the formation of new knowledge gleaned from the learning of new subject material (Smolen, Zhang, and Byrne, 2016). Spaced practice is often contrasted with massed (or clustered) practice, whereby material is practiced in a single session or close succession. Spacing spreads out study activities over time (Dunlosky and Rawson, 2015) and can be implemented in several ways. Material can be spaced within a single lesson, for example, by revisiting a new concept three times in a lesson with ten-minute spaces in between. Alternatively, spacing can occur between lessons—a topic may be revisited three times across one week or once a week for several weeks. In the literature, there were more examples of spacing across days and weeks; we therefore refer to these as ‘standard spacing’ or ‘spacing over lessons’. There were fewer examples of spacing within a single lesson; we refer to these as ‘short’ or ‘within-lesson’ spacing. Spacing can be applied to many aspects of teaching and learning, including the spacing of instruction or delivery (for example, information provided on a particular topic), practice (such as completing worksheets), or assessment (for example, the frequency of quizzes or formative tests). Spaced learning is one of several cognitive science informed strategies labeled as a ‘desirable difficulty’; learning may be more challenging on a short-term basis, but long-term retention is thought to be enhanced as a result (Greving and Richter, 2019). In spaced practice, spaces are usually filled with unrelated activities or the learning of unrelated topics. In this area we have identified two strategies with sufficient evidence to examine the effectiveness of the strategy. These are defined more fully below. The two strategies are: - ‘standard’ spaces, across lessons or days—18 studies, of which three were graded as high priority and thereby identified for in-depth analysis; and - ‘short’ spaces, within lessons—two studies, both high priority, one a meta-analysis of six small-scale spaced learning trials in this area. 7 Main findings Strategy 1: spacing across days or lessons (‘standard’ spacing) Concise definition ‘Standard’ spacing is the practice of separating or distributing learning over more than one lesson, usually across multiple days and weeks. Full definition and description ‘Standard’ spacing is the practice of separating or distributing the (re)presentation or (re)study of material over more than one lesson, usually across multiple days and weeks, in some cases over longer periods. Spacing is sometimes called ‘distributed’ learning or practice. The alternative to spacing is usually referred to as ‘blocked’ or ‘massed’ practice, where content is studied in a single learning session. Spacing is sometimes combined with retrieval practice, often known as spaced retrieval practice. Selected examples Examples of this strategy: ▪ Denton et al. (2011) delivered a supplemental, small-group reading tutoring intervention to first-grade students (age 6 to 7) over (a) four sessions per week for 16 weeks, (b) four sessions per week for eight weeks, or (c) two sessions per week over 16 weeks). The first group received approximately 30 hours of the intervention and latter two groups about 15 hours each (and so could be compared to assess spaced practice). ▪ Bloom (1981) compared ten minutes on three successive days to 30 minutes on a single day of vocabulary practice in a high-school French language course. ▪ Goossens et al. (2016) compared six exercises a week to the same spread over two weeks for a primary school vocabulary learning study. ▪ Greving and Richter (2019) compared recall of a test for seventh-grade students (age 12 to 13) who re-read a text immediately compared to re-reading it one week later. ▪ Svihla et al. (2018) studied high school student’s learning in a science enquiry unit. One group completed the unit in five consecutive class periods over two weeks; the other group completed one activity per week for five weeks. Selected high priority studies in this area O’Hare et al., 2017.This second study rated as high priority in this area. It was an RCT pilot evaluation of the EEF SMART Spaces programme for 13- to 15-year-olds in England (n = 408) on GCSE science test performance. The groups were allocated at the class level into three experimental groups and two control groups. The conditions were: 8 ▪ three spaced practice experimental groups: version 1: ten-minute spaces within class (n = 110), version 2: 24-hour delay, interleaved topics (n = 75), and version 3: both (n = 91); and ▪ two control conditions: a ‘slides-only’ control, where the materials were provided (n = 79); and a ‘business as usual’ control (n = 53). After training, teachers were supplied with curriculum-based lesson materials for three topics, one each for biology, chemistry, and physics. The trial was conducted over three consecutive days, with intra-lesson spacing and/or inter-lesson spacing manipulated. A GCSE past paper was used as the outcome measure, with secondary outcome measures examining pupil engagement. There were both short-answer and long-answer test items. Table 1.2: Summary of results from O’Hare et al., 2017—total test scores Variant Control Effect size (g) 95% CI 10-min Slides only 0.03 (-0.14, 0.20) Business as usual 0.12 (-0.07, 0.30) 24-hr Slides only -0.09 (-0.25, 0.07) Business as usual -0.02 (-0.20, 0.14) Both Slides only 0.11 (-0.05, 0.28) Business as usual 0.19 (0.01, 0.36) Key findings. The study found that combining 24-hour and ten-minute spacing was most effective (particularly on long-answer questions) compared to BAU, although the effect was small (g = 0.19, 95 % CI: 0.01, 0.36). This effect was the largest; all others were not statistically significant from zero. A pupil questionnaire included a scale-based measure of pupil engagement that was found to be positively correlated with positive outcome changes on the post-test. The researchers concluded that engagement was a significant implementation factor. The risk of bias assessment for this study did not raise any concerns. Overview of some of the most representative studies in this area In the table below are summarized the outcomes of some of the studies. Table 1.3: Spacing across days or lessons (‘standard’ spacing)—summary of evidence Study Focus Population Finding High Priority Studies N = 829 Neutral Year 9 (13-14 ‘Offline’ spacing was not statistically significantly more *Feddern biology years old effective than massed practice. However, the software et al. test Number of mixed strategy condition (which (2018) scores schools not included spacing alongside other strategies) produced reported. UK significantly higher scores than both. Group means and 9  statistical significance reported, but not SDs or effect sizes (see above for further details). Positive A) Both 1- and 6-week tests showed positive effect of spacing for Grade 7. With performance 6 weeks after the last practice set as dependent variable, the mean of the N = 141 posterior distribution of distributed practice 3rd and 7th was 0.79 (95% CI = -0.35, 1.94). grade *Nazari et Neutral maths 5 primary, 4 al. (2019) B) For children in Grade 3, a significant positive effect secondary of spacing found for 1-week test only. The posterior schools, distribution of the effect of distributed Germany practice on the performance 6 weeks after the last practice as compared with massed practice had a mean of 0.37 (95% CI = -0.50, 1.20). Strategy 2: ‘Short’ spacing Concise definition ‘Short’ spacing involves spacing learning within a single lesson period, usually separated by short intervals where students complete an unrelated task. Full definition and description ‘Short’ spacing involves spacing learning within a single lesson period, usually separated by short intervals where students complete an unrelated task. This interval, often referred to as the inter-study interval (ISI) or ‘distraction’ task, is typically around 10 to 15 minutes in length. In instances where the ISI is a related topic or task, this may be an example of interleaving (Strategy 3). Selected examples Examples of this strategy include: ▪ O’Hare et al. (2017) report their trial of the SMART Spaces programme. This compared three treatment conditions (as summarised in the table below) and one control condition (receiving slides but no spacing protocol). 10  Version 1 Version 2 Version 3 10 - minute spacing 24 - hour spacing Mixed ▪ 12 minutes of chemistry ▪ 12 minutes of ▪ 12 minutes of ▪ 10-minute ‘space’ chemistry chemistry ▪ 12 minutes of chemistry ▪ 12 minutes of physics ▪ 10 minutes of ‘space’ Day 1 repeated ▪ 12 minutes of biology ▪ 12 minutes of physics ▪ 10-minute ‘space’ ▪ 20 minutes of ‘space’ ▪ 10 minutes of ‘space’ ▪ 12 minutes of chemistry at end ▪ 12 minutes of biology repeated Day 2 As day 1 but for physics As day 1 As day 1 Day 3 As day 1 but for biology As day 1 As day 1 ▪ Spaced learning in Kelley and Whatson (2013) consisted of ‘three intensive instruction elements of the same content with minor variations each lasting 20 min or less (stimuli), spaced by two distractor activities of ten minutes (spaces without the stimuli)’, which they compared to (remarkably) four months of regular teaching in biology. Evidence for this approach There were two studies in this area, both graded as high. One of these studies is presented here in detail. Churches et al. (2020), was a meta-analysis of 34 co-ordinated, small, teacher-led RCTs, of which six were focused on spaced learning. For studies across all cognitive science areas, teachers were provided with an RCT design day and pre-reading material about RCT design and cognitive science concepts. Teachers then designed and led their own RCTs. Curriculum subjects spanned mathematics (times tables, problem solving), English (vocabulary, spelling), science, history, and geography. Trial length varied from a single lesson to 42 days. Of the 34 RCTs, six focused on spaced learning. Those six studies were not reported in detail individually, but details of their topic area, n, effect size, and an analysis of their robustness are provided. We reproduce an overview of the individual studies below. All studies are reported as using ten minute intervals for spacing. They were all from the same author, reported in two publications. Jadad score for Year Effect size Author Subject n robustness (0– group (d) 5)5 Bryant-Khachy Y5 History 54 0.85 3 (2018b) Bryant-Khachy Y4 History 56 0.61 3 (2018b) 11 Bryant-Khachy Y2 Geography 60 0.43 3 (2018a) Bryant-Khachy Y6 History 57 0.28 3 (2018b) Bryant-Khachy Y3 History 223 0.12 3 (2018b) Bryant-Khachy Y1 Geography 50 0.04 (2018a) Key findings. Overall, these studies suggest a positive impact of within-lesson spacing. All studies are in either geography or history, and from the same author. All are for primary school age children. Most have a sample size of 50–60 apart from one that has 223. There are no details about why the effect sizes might vary, given the ostensibly highly similar conditions. This study’s risk of bias assessment raised some concerns with the randomisation process and about deviations from the intended intervention. Note that the underlying studies were not accessible and full details were not provided. Our assessment of risk of bias, raising some concerns, reflects some gaps in the information provided as well as concerns based on the details provided. Overview of some of the most representative studies in this area In the table below are summarized the outcomes of some of the studies. Table 1.6: Spacing within lessons—summary of evidence Study Focus Population Finding High Priority Studies Positive Effect sizes were positive for all 6 6 studies n = 54, 56, spaced practice trials but only one was *Churches 60, 57, History and statistically significant. Year 5 History (d = et al. 223, 50. Geography.85, p