Announcing inaugural UK Educational Neuroscience conference

encore-flyer4

Educational Neuroscience Collaboration and Research UK (ENCoRe UK) is pleased to announce its very first conference in London, to be held at Birkbeck University of London on 24th and 25th April 2025. This two-day event will bring together experts, researchers, and students to foster collaboration and innovation in the field of educational neuroscience.

Keynote presentations will be delivered by Prof. Usha Goswami and Prof. Paul Howard Jones, alongside short talks, poster sessions, and discussion tables. Researchers from The Millennium Core for the Science of Learning (MiNSoL), Chile will also present in a special session. The conference is sponsored by Learnus.

For more information, see here.

Deadline for submissions: 10th of December 2024 5pm

Download the flyer

Advancing Education Through Neuroscience: The Role of the Educational Neuroscience Hub Europe (Malta) and Its Impact on Teaching Practices

maltablog1

In this blog, our colleague and collaborator Dr. Erika Galea, talks about how she founded and directs the Educational Neuroscience Hub Europe (Malta). Erika holds a masters in educational leadership and completed her PhD in the Department of Psychology and Human Development at University College London. Her thesis was entitled ‘Regulating Emotions in the Maltese Classroom to Improve the Quality of Teaching and Learning in the Early Years’. She has spent over two decades working in education as a teacher and in senior leadership. The Hub, founded in 2022, is focused on promoting evidence-based strategies to improve teaching and learning effectiveness, emphasising student-centred education. Erika describes the inspiration behind the Hub, and how it is achieving its goals.

Introduction and Impact

The Educational Neuroscience Hub Europe (Malta), of which I am founder and director, has been instrumental in raising awareness and transforming the mindset of educators across Malta and Gozo, from early childhood education through to tertiary education. This transformation involves council of heads, school and college principals, lecturers, senior leadership teams, curriculum coordinators and heads of departments, teachers, learning support staff, as well as psychologists, speech therapists, inclusive coordinators, social workers, and play therapists, all through its extensive training workshops.

Bridging Neuroscience and Pedagogy

maltablog2

By introducing the science of teaching and learning, the Hub aims to bridge the gap between neuroscience and pedagogy. As the expert leading this initiative, I am converging these two disciplines within local schools. Dialogue with experienced educators is of utmost importance, as listening to those who have been trialling and testing teaching strategies for a while is crucial for merging the neuroscientific strategies with their already effective methods. It is important to communicate to educators that this is not about completely changing their methodology, but rather about making small adjustments to enhance its effectiveness in reaching their students in the classroom.

Debunking Neuromyths

maltablog3A significant focus of the training is to debunk common neuromyths—misconceptions about brain function that can hinder effective teaching practices. For instance, the belief that individuals are either left-brained or right-brained learners is a neuromyth that the Hub actively dispels. Similarly, the Hub addresses the widespread belief in learning styles and multiple intelligences, clarifying that these ideas are not supported by current neuroscientific evidence. By correcting such misunderstandings, the Hub empowers teachers with accurate knowledge, enabling them to adopt strategies that align with how the brain genuinely processes information, including the various types of memory involved.

Evidence-Based Teaching Strategies

maltablog4A key element of the training workshops is examining the influence of neuroscience on teaching strategies and embedding these approaches within the curriculum, lesson planning, and daily methodology. The Hub’s approach is grounded in evidence-based practices that adopt insights from brain research to enhance teaching methods. Teachers learn how to apply principles of neuroplasticity, the brain’s ability to reorganise itself by forming new neural connections, which is transformative in enabling them to create more adaptable and responsive learning environments. Practical applications, discussed during the workshops, include strategies such as different modes of retrieval practice, with their lesson planning for improving memory retention, fostering critical thinking skills, and boosting overall student engagement through activities that stimulate cognitive development.

Integrating Emotion Regulation, Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning

maltablog5Emotion regulation, metacognitive and self-regulated learning strategies are integrated into daily teaching routines, promoting both cognitive and emotional intelligence, as well as a growth mindset, among students. By incorporating these strategies into their pedagogy, teachers not only help students manage their emotions but also support their development of metacognitive and self-regulated learning skills. When students can manage their emotions, they are better equipped to monitor and adjust their cognitive strategies, leading to improved focus and more effective engagement with learning activities. Self-regulated learning further enhances this by empowering students to set goals, develop strategies, and self-assess their progress, all while managing emotional responses that might otherwise hinder their learning.

Enhancing Retention Through Emotional Engagement, Novelty and Relevance

maltablog6During the workshops, I emphasise the crucial role of presenting relevant content and introducing novelty to enhance motivation and engagement, as well as evoking emotions in teaching to improve the retention of information and skills. By adopting cognitive strategies that incorporate emotional engagement, teachers can help students not only remember content more effectively but also develop the self-awareness and self-regulation skills necessary for lifelong learning. This integrated approach ensures that students are not only managing their emotions but also applying metacognitive and self-regulation strategies to achieve more profound and sustained learning outcomes.

Workshop Structure and Impact

maltablog7

The workshops offer a highly enriching experience, divided into three distinct parts to maximise impact. The session begins with an engaging and interactive talk that presents the theoretical underpinnings of neuroscientific strategies. This is followed by collaborative, hands-on practical work designed to help educators integrate these strategies into their daily methodologies. The final component provides a platform for educators to delve deeper into these concepts, reflect on their practices, and discuss their experiences. This structured approach not only allows educators to critically examine and enhance their methods but also ensures that the strategies are practical and effective for real classroom settings.

Fostering Mindset Shifts and Engagement

maltablog8Educational Neuroscience focuses on creating awareness of evidence-based approaches, necessitating a change in mindset. This shift fosters engaging and thoughtful discussions, making it a fulfilling experience and a pleasure to positively impact teaching approaches. The insightful questions posed by teachers during these workshops reflect their active engagement and critical reflection on their teaching practices. These interactions highlight the success of the various workshops in promoting a deeper understanding of how neuroscience can inform and improve educational practices. Engaging with experienced educators facilitates a rich exchange of ideas, enhancing the training’s effectiveness and providing newly qualified teachers with new strategies and teaching approaches.

National Recognition and Future Outlook

Since the training and awareness initiatives started last October, teachers and school senior leadership teams nationwide have enthusiastically embraced the educational neuroscience workshops and evidence-based practices throughout the past scholastic year, valuing the insightful and practical strategies provided. There is strong interest in expanding these workshops further, with a focus on providing adequate support during implementation and evaluation phases to measure their impact effectively. Their collective enthusiasm highlights a strong commitment to enhancing educational outcomes through the application of neuroscience principles.

The positive development is that educational neuroscience has been officially recognised and incorporated into the Malta National Education Strategy 2024–2030, which was published in March 2024. Following a consultation with the working group on the National Education Strategy at the Ministry for Education and conducting training sessions for ministry officials, I played a pivotal role in advocating for this inclusion, highlighting the recognition of the significance of educational neuroscience. This strategic move emphasises the commitment to adopting scientific insights to enhance educational outcomes nationwide. By embedding educational neuroscience into the Malta National Educational Strategy, the initiative aims to sustain and expand its impact, ultimately benefiting teachers and students across the country.

I look forward to continuing this journey in the upcoming academic year, delving further into integrating neuroscience principles into teaching and learning.

For more on the Educational Neuroscience Hub Europe (Malta), visit our website. To contact Dr. Galea, email her at: erikagalea@educationalneurosciencehub.com

The Spatial Reasoning Toolkit (we love the keyrings!)

sr_keyring

Here at the CEN, we are very excited about the Spatial Reasoning Toolkit, developed by CEN members Emily Farran and Katie Gilligan-Lee (now at Surrey University and University College Dublin, respectively).

Spatial reasoning involves our interpretation of how things, including ourselves, relate to each other in space, and includes interpreting images and creating representations. We use spatial reasoning in our everyday lives and in many occupations. Importantly, spatial reasoning is strongly linked with achievement in mathematics.

Spatial reasoning can be taught and spatial experiences are particularly important for spatial development in early childhood. However, while research has demonstrated that spatial cognition has a fundamental causal role in success in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subjects, its potential remains under-realised because spatial cognition is under-emphasised both in classroom practice and in education policy.

The Spatial Reasoning Toolkit provide resources to help educators support the development of children’s spatial reasoning in sensitive, age-appropriate and playful ways. At the CEN, we particularly love the spatial reasoning keyrings, which give a a quick and handy reference resource summarising the learning trajectories for spatial skills. They provide suggestions for activities to support the development of children’s spatial cognition from birth to 7 years and include spatial language prompts. We have been playing with the Shape Properties keyring ourselves (shown above), but there are also Movement & Navigation and Shape Composition & Construction versions available. You can make your own keyrings using the resources here.

Make time for space in your STEM education!

Here’s Emily describing the toolkit at a recent seminar:

farran-seminar

New PhD Opportunity in Educational Neuroscience at University College Dublin

imgres

Dr. Katie Gilligan-Lee, an affiliate member of the CEN, is excited to be advertising a funded PhD position in educational neuroscience/developmental psychology at University College Dublin, Ireland. This PhD project will begin in September 2024 and will broadly investigate the role of spatial cognition for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) achievement. However, there will be flexibility in the design of specific studies and inclusion of additional research themes. The funding covers both a PhD stipend and fees.

Further information and details on how to apply can be found here. The deadline for applications is: 5pm May 17th 2024. Informal queries can be sent to Katie directly at katie.gilligan-lee@ucd.ie.

Project details: There is convincing evidence that spatial skills play an important role in STEM achievement. However, preliminary evidence suggests that this association may differ for children from different socio-economic status (SES) backgrounds. The goal of this project is to investigate the cognitive mechanisms that underpin spatial-STEM associations and explore the moderating effect of SES on these associations. Wider goals of the project are to promote children’s STEM success inside and outside of the classroom, and to reduce SES-based attainment gaps using cognitive intervention.

Supporting the Complex Needs of Children with Genetic Syndromes in Educational Practice: A New Online Resource for Teachers and Education Practitioners

logo-with-web-address

The Neurodevelopmental Research (NDevR) lab recently launched a new teacher focused training resource: Supporting the Complex Needs of Children with Genetic Syndromes in Educational Practice (www.findteacherresources.co.uk). Researchers Dr Jo Moss and Holly Snellgrove from the University of Surrey developed this novel, freely available e-resource in consultation with SENCOs, SEN teachers, parents, carers and educational psychologists. Its aim is to raise awareness and understanding of the complex needs of children with genetic syndromes associated with intellectual disability. In this blog, Jo and Holly give an overview of the inspiration behind the resource, and what it comprises.

“Children with neurodevelopmental conditions are known to experience poor developmental, health and wellbeing outcomes compared to neurotypical peers (Beadle-Brown et al. 2005). These inequalities are heightened in children with the most complex clinical presentations and particularly those with intellectual disability (ID) associated with rare genetic syndromes.

Currently rare genetic conditions account for approximately 50% of individuals with severe intellectual disability and 20% of individuals with a mild intellectual disability (Oliver & Woodcock, 2008). Therefore, it’s crucial that educational practitioners receive appropriate training and support to cater for the needs of children with genetic syndromes in classroom settings.

“At present, practitioners working in schools have very limited access to training and information about rare genetic syndromes”

At present, practitioners working in schools have very limited access to training and information regarding these syndromes and due to the rarity of the syndromes, they are unlikely to have significant experience of working with other children who have the same condition. Therefore, condensed and accessible information on genetic syndromes can be invaluable for practitioners (Waite et al, 2014).

The resource we developed features information on a range of topics that teachers/educational practitioners can work through at their own pace. It includes topics such as ‘Co-occurring Conditions’, ‘Understanding Behaviour’, ‘Individual Differences’, and ‘Support for Parents and Carers’.

The resource features informative text and infographics, videos from the research team, teachers, parents and an educational psychologist, links to further resources and reflective exercises. The content of the resource has been informed by research findings from various scientific studies, which can be accessed from the academic papers section.

The resource also has dedicated pages which signpost users to additional resources and useful support groups, both general and syndrome specific, that can enable users to identify further information and support resources.

We hope this resource will help teachers and educational practitioners to further develop their understanding of the ways that children with genetic syndromes can be supported in educational settings. Although the resource was designed primarily for education practitioners, others who support children with genetic syndromes may also find it useful, and it is therefore accessible to all.

The resource can be accessed via the following link: www.findteacherresources.co.uk

The launch event can be found here.”

 

Update on MetaSENse: Evidence of increasing evaluation of ‘what works’ for students with SEND

metasense-im1

In this article, Professor Jo van Herwegen and her team give an update on the latest findings from the MetaSENse project which is revisiting the evidence base for effective interventions for students with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND).

Background of the wider MetaSENse project

The number of pupils identified with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) continues to rise (DfE, 2021). Educational outcomes for those with SEND are often lower compared to those without SEND and this gap has become larger since 2020. This is likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic (Tuckett et al., 2022) and highlights the disparities for this population. Thus, it is important for parents, educators, specialist professionals and policymakers to understand the best evidence-based practice to raise educational outcomes in pupils with SEND.

The CEN’s MetaSENse[1] study, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, is synthesising evidence of what remediations work across different pupils with SEND aged 4 to 25. Technically, the project is focusing on “manualised” (i.e., has a published and accessible manual) targeted intervention approaches (either Tier 2 or Tier 3) that go beyond good quality teaching. Tier 2 interventions are often provided in small-group sessions in the classroom during independent work or during times that do not conflict with other critical content areas. Tier 3 provides intensive intervention sessions for individual students with more significant needs or whose needs are not sufficiently met by Tier 2 supports.

In phase 1 of the project, the team is carrying out a systematic review of the empirical literature, followed by a meta-analysis of the data. In addition to analysing of the quality of the evidence base, this meta-analysis will, for the first time, inform which Tier 2 and Tier 3 manualised interventions work best (that is, have largest effect sizes) in relation to different phases of education (preschool, primary, secondary, post-16), and in different educational contexts (special vs mainstream). And this is being done for each category of SEND needs. In phase 2, the team is using in-depth interviews with educational professionals to identify the barriers they face in implementing the most effective practices indicated by the aforementioned evidence.

The project will have a practical outcome: we will produce a toolkit featuring a database that can inform practitioners about the evidence-base underpinning different interventions for pupils with SEND, and which interventions to select in different contexts according to pupils’ needs. This will allow parents, educators, specialist professionals and policymakers to make evidence-informed decisions about how to raise educational outcomes for those with SEND in cost-effective ways. By the same token, it will inform the future research agenda of academics and relevant funders.

Update on our findings: the number of RCTs and QeDs included in MetaSENse

Randomised Control Trials (RCTs) are seen as the ‘gold standard’ way of evaluating what works. In RCTs participants are randomly assigned to one of two groups: the experimental group receiving the intervention or the control group which either receives the business-as-usual support in the classroom or another type of activity (named active control trial) that is not of interest.

Quasi-experimental designs (QeDs) are studies in which two groups of subjects are matched based on one or more characteristics and one group receives the intervention, whilst the other does not and receives either business as usual or an active control intervention. The difference with RCTs is that in QEDs the groups are not randomly allocated.

Together, these two types of study form the best kind of evidence that tell us how effective interventions for SEND are, in what populations and in what contexts.

In our systematic review, we began by collating all the research papers that reported the outcome of evaluating interventions to improve educational abilities in children with SEND. Using our pre-registered search protocol, we identified 55,564 records for title and abstract, which we then screened to evaluate their relevance. We then screened 4323 full texts, as well as full texts from clearing houses, organisations which write composite reports of evidence. From this set, we identified 533 records of studies that meet our inclusion criteria for the systematic review: over 500 studies to review! This initial work demonstrates that there are now a large number of studies that have examined Tier 2 and Tier 3 manualised interventions to improve educational outcomes for those with SEND.

How did we decide which studies to consider? The studies we considered were all published between 1st of January 2000 and 27/02/2023. We only included RCTs and QeDs that were published in peer-reviewed journals or dedicated websites of clearing houses and charities. Student dissertations held by universities were not included. Studies had to include a manualised intervention and report at least one educational outcome related to maths, reading, writing, science or overall attainment. We only included studies that focused on individuals with an existing diagnosis, or if the study screened for a diagnosis using normed assessments. Studies that only included students at risk for SEND based on teacher report or general attainment outcomes were not included, because this might target a much more heterogeneous population. Finally, studies could be completed in any country as long as the text was available in English.

What have we found so far? As can be seen from Figure 1 below, there has been a steady increase in the number of studies that have evaluated which interventions work to improve educational outcomes for students with SEND. Despite the steady increase in study numbers, it is important to note that this represents research globally.

The next step is to extract findings from these studies and use statistics to characterise the overall patterns – an analysis of the analyses, otherwise known as a meta-analysis. We have only completed data extraction for 25% of all studies and so far, have identified relatively few studies that have been carried out in the UK. In addition, the number of RCTs and QeDs alone does not yet tell us anything about the quality of the evidence and whether this has improved over time. So, with data extraction and quality analysis of more than 350 studies still to go… watch this space!

Our interim finding, however, is that there is an encouraging increase over time in the number of studies applying the best evidence-based approaches to evaluating the effectiveness of educational interventions for children with SEND.

Figure 1. Number of studies per publication year for MetaSENse:  All studies include RCTs or QeDs related to improving educational outcomes for those with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities.

metasense-im2

 

More about MetaSENse

You can find out more about the MetaSENse study and research team here: MetaSENse

The metaSENse study is funded by the Nuffield Foundation: The Nuffield Foundation is an independent charitable trust with a mission to advance social well-being. It funds research that informs social policy, primarily in Education, Welfare, and Justice. It also funds student programmes that provide opportunities for young people to develop skills in quantitative and scientific methods. The Nuffield Foundation is the founder and co-funder of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, the Ada Lovelace Institute and the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory. The Foundation has funded this project, but the views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily the Foundation. Visit www.nuffieldfoundation.org

 

[1] Raising educational outcomes for pupils with SEN and disabilities (MetaSENse)

References

DfE, June 2021: https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/special-educational-needs-in-england#releaseHeadlines-dataBlock-tables

Tuckett, S. et al., (2022). COVID-19 and Disadvantage Gaps in England 2021. Education Policy Institute, https://epi.org.uk/

“Did ChatGPT just ruin education?”

dalle_university-administrator

In this blog, Michael Thomas discusses the potential impact of generative AI tools such as ChatGPT on education.

Generative artificial intelligence, such as ChatGPT, is a form of AI that can generate human-like text based on a ‘large language model’ – information extracted from what is out on the internet. It can write essays and summarise facts, it can give feedback on written work and Excel formulae. There are versions that can generate other types of content, such as images from text, or music. I used DALL:E to generate the above image in response to the text prompt “draw a photorealistic picture of a university administrator thinking very hard about artificial intelligence” (I added the text!). Together, generative AI represents an immensely powerful tool.

In education, one of the principal methods of encouraging conceptual learning, developing writing skills, and assessing knowledge, is to ask students to independently write essays. However, students are now increasingly using generative AI in their work (see, e.g., this recent article from the BBC: ‘Most of our friends use AI in schoolwork‘). This is causing concern among educators and parents alike.

For educators, generative AI represents a significant challenge. Can teachers no longer use essays as an educational tool? Has a principal form of assessment been lost? Generative AI is immensely powerful but it has limitations: it generates plausible, ‘high probability’ text, not necessarily factually correct text, and the content it generates can be biased based on what the AI has found on the internet. Are students using a tool that leads them astray?

Like search engines, generative AI cannot be uninvented. Instead, students should be guided on how best to use generative AI to support their learning. But right now, students frequently know more about what generative AI can do than educators.

CEN Director Michael Thomas recently attended a meeting of the All Parliamentary Party Group (APPG) on Artificial Intelligence at the UK House of Lords, convened to discuss the potential impact (for better or worse) of generative artificial intelligence on education. He wrote a report of the meeting for the education think tank Learnus. The 3-page report can be found here.

Here are the main points from the report of the House of Lords meeting:

1. No one was panicking that AI robots were going to take over the world – although everyone recognised the downside risks of generative AI (e.g., inaccurate and biased content, age-inappropriate content, commercial ownership, data privacy). Instead, the main focus was on opportunities.

2. Among experts, there was a diverse range of views expressed on what tools like ChatGPT mean for education – all the way from ‘that don’t impress me’ to ‘it’s a steppingstone to utopia’. Some thought it on a par with the introduction of calculators to maths class, or of search engines for researching essays and projects: a helpful tool, necessitating some tweaking of teaching practice, but not much more. Others thought it would fundamentally alter educational practices and was an opportunity to democratise education – a tool to provide support for all.

3. The kids currently know much more than the teachers – pretty much everyone agreed that the most important first step is to improve teacher literacy on generative AI, to understand what these systems can (and can’t) do, and to begin to think about how they may be used. Perhaps the most important take-home for teachers and students alike is that you’ve got to know the limitations of the technology.

4. Guidance is beginning to emerge – institutions are thinking hard about the educational impact of generative AI, and some guidance is beginning to emerge (e.g., from the UK Department for Education and from the Russell Group of UK universities). As an example, this term, I gave a lecture to university psychology students on how they might use ChatGPT as a tool in their essay writing. I let them know what the chances are of getting caught if they simply use it to write their assessments (given that universities use AI detection tools, and that ChatGPT essays are reasonably easy to spot for content experts); and I also told them the very mediocre mark they would likely receive for an AI generated essay even if they didn’t get caught – because ChatGPT doesn’t write great essays. Here’s a slide summarising some tips:

generativeai-and-essay-writing-tips

 

There are many ways generative AI can be useful in education: to suggest initial ideas, to give feedback on text, to help second language learners improve their writing, for checking and recommending Excel formulae or computer code.

There are inevitably pitfalls we need to avoid (mostly linked to ensuring that content is unbiased and factually true, and that creativity is not stifled – ChatGPT will encourage you to write just like everyone else on the internet!).

But the broad message should be a positive one. In the same way that the invention of search engines gave everyone unprecedented access to vast stores of human knowledge (but ‘knowledge’ not to treated uncritically), generative AI can empower learners. The search is on for the best guidance to allow students to realise the potential of this new tool and avoid its pitfalls.

Did ChatGPT just ruin education? No, it gave education a powerful new tool, but with an instruction manual yet to be written.

New CEN book on how the brain works

final-cover-thumbnail

The CEN has a new book out, written by CEN Director Michael Thomas and Simon Green, entitled ‘How the brain works: What psychology students need to know’. It provides an accessible overview of how the brain works useful to psychology students and to educators.

The book is published by Sage. For a 25% discount, use the code HTBW25 on the Sage website or on eBooks.com (valid until 31/12/24).

Michael says: “We wanted to write an accessible book on how the brain works. When psychology students or educators are introduced to the brain, the material often focuses on the Latin names for different structures, or how brain scanners work. As one student said to us, ‘I wanted to know why neurons communicate both electrically and chemically. I wanted to know why the left side of the brain controls the right side of the body. But whenever I asked these sorts of ‘why’ questions, the teacher kept saying, just learn it, it’s in the textbook’. Simon and I set out to write a book that gives an overall gist of how the brain works and why it works that way, which ultimately led us to placing the brain in its evolutionary context; and then showing how homo sapiens has subsequently stepped out of this context – in the main, through a cultural focus on education. The book shows how our minds have the peculiar properties they do because of how the brain works (including the way we learn); that the brain works the way it does because of biology; and that biology works the way it does because of evolution.”

For more on the book, see Michael and Simon’s recent interview in the Psychologist magazine. Supporting material for the book can be found here.

Avoiding the hype over early foreign language teaching

kids-in-school

New CEN paper: Foreign language provision in English primary schools: making evidence-based pedagogical choices

Dr Sue Whiting and Prof. Chloë Marshall from the CEN have published a new paper in the journal Frontiers in Education. The paper aims to arm education professionals with a critical awareness of the (lack of) evidence supporting the bilingual advantage and innovative foreign language taster courses, to help them make evidence-based decisions regarding how to teach foreign languages in primary schools.

Here, lead author Sue Whiting discusses why certain widely held beliefs (e.g. that learning a second language confers an academic advantage, and that the younger-the-better maxim for naturalistic language learning is valid in classroom settings) are tempting some schools to explore unproven ways of teaching languages to 3-11 year olds.

Is foreign-language learning working?

Fluency in more than one language is clearly an advantage in our modern global age of multicultural societies. However, foreign language learning appears to be in crisis in countries where the majority of the population are English monolinguals, i.e., in Anglophone contexts. This has been attributed to the dominance of English as a global language giving rise to the perception that native English speakers do not need to learn other languages (Lanvers et al., 2021).

Despite a recent government initiative in England (Department for Education (DfE), 2013) to introduce foreign language teaching for one hour a week for Years 3-6 (Key Stage 2; KS2), a motivational crisis appears to start from about 11 years of age, once pupils enter secondary school (Lanvers & Martin, 2021): many pupils perceive learning a foreign language to be irrelevant, boring, difficult, and that ‘English is enough’ (Lanvers et al., 2021).

Does bilingualism itself help cognition?

In addition to any obvious personal, social, cultural and economic benefits of being fluent in two or more languages, there are also controversial claims that a ‘bilingual advantage’ leads to improved academic outcomes (Bialystok et al., 2009). This advantage purportedly arises when the skills that are acquired in coordinating two languages transfer to other, non-linguistic, mental processes relevant to learning in school and thereby improve educational outcomes. The research substantiating these claims, though, is mixed with generally only earlier studies, which usually involved only a small number of participants, revealing benefits (Duñabeitia & Carreiras, 2015; Paap et al., 2015, 2019; Van den Noort et al., 2019): lack of replicability is a particular issue (e.g., Bialystok & Martin, 2004; Shokrkon & Nicoladis, 2021).

The ‘bilingual advantage’ is not a robust effect

Many authors now consider that any bilingual advantage occurs only in ‘very specific and undetermined circumstances’ (Paap et al., 2015) and, in relation to academic performance, is likely to be a neuromyth (CEN, 2023). Furthermore, any benefit is likely to entail regularly engaging with the second language rather than experiencing it for just an hour a week in an artificial, classroom environment with little or no out-of-school exposure.

Beware the sales pitch

Nevertheless some language resource websites are targeting schools and caregivers with aggressive marketing of their products, by suggesting that all children learning foreign languages will gain such wide-reaching, general cognitive benefits in all circumstances. Some of the sale pitches appeal to notions of the brain (such as left-brain versus right-brain learning) that have been identified by other authors to be neuromyths (CEN, n.d.). Furthermore, claims far exceed what the current evidence shows, often citing newspapers’ headline catching articles or online articles written by non-specialists.

Against the backdrop of the disappointing results from the current KS2 Foreign Languages policy, such bilingual advantage claims are encouraging some schools not governed by KS2 regulations, i.e., state schools [Early Years to Year 2 (3–7 years of age)] and independent schools (3–11 years of age) to explore unproven ways of teaching foreign languages so their pupils may enjoy enhanced cognitive ability and academic success.

Here’s what doesn’t work

One unproven, and previously discredited, idea resurrected from the 1980s, albeit with older children, is that of schools giving young children a superficial exposure to multiple foreign languages in the belief that they will become natural linguists with native-like speech in numerous foreign languages. This is despite a lack of evidence from either research into a younger-the-better advantage for classroom language learning (Lightbown & Spada, 2020; Mitchell & Myles, 2019; Myles, 2017) or from language awareness research that superficial exposure to multiple languages would support learning (HMI, 1990, para. 66).

There are huge challenges in transferring the rich, immersive, native-language learning environment, where young children learn by ‘doing’ along with access to many hours a day of high-quality input from multiple social interactions, to the formal foreign language learning primary school classroom that typically provides just one hour of exposure each week. The arguments against providing a shallow exposure of several languages are as valid today as in 1990 when the HMI Language Courses Report concluded that ‘short, watered down, fragmented and thin experiences in too many languages’ provided ‘an utterly inadequate base for mastering practical communication skills in any one language and developing proficiency therein’. Then, as now, a policy of continuous exposure to just one foreign language is considered to be superior.

How to judge a good method for teaching foreign languages

We end our paper by recommending that schools should be extremely wary of being persuaded to be the first school to try something innovative when it is sold as being ‘ahead of the game’, or to take part in a research project for which they have to pay. We provide some objective criteria to help schools, from early years settings to the end of primary, to judge the efficacy of unproven methods of teaching foreign languages (or, indeed, other subjects) before adopting them. Here are our top five recommendations:

  1. Remember, a product sold as ‘ahead of the game’ often means untried and untested
  2. Approach other schools already using the innovative protocol to establish what quantifiable outcomes can be reasonably expected
  3. Check the credentials and qualifications of the person making the proposal. Has the Education Endowment Foundation evaluated the proposed pedagogic approach?
  4. If the innovative scheme is sold as a ‘research project’ then it would have been approved by the relevant university’s Ethics Committee. External funding will usually be available, too, in which case there should be no costs to the school in the form of expenses or for consultancy fees.
  5. Schools should consult with, and request approval from, their board of governors. The Primary Languages Policy white paper recommends developing ‘effective partnerships between head teachers and governors’  (Holmes & Myles, 2019, p. 13, p. 16). Boards often have the diverse experience to properly interrogate innovate schemes for educational provision.

References

Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., Green, D. W., & Gollan, T. H. (2009). Bilingual Minds. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 10(3), 89–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100610387084

CEN, (2023). Learning two languages gives an advantage at school | Centre for Educational Neuroscience

CEN, (n.d.). Left brain versus right brain thinkers | Centre for Educational Neuroscience

Department for Education (DfE) (2013). Languages programmes of study: key stage 2 National curriculum in England. Available here (Accessed July 15, 2023).

Duñabeitia, J. A., & Carreiras, M. (2015). The bilingual advantage: acta est fabula? Cortex, 73, 371-372. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2015.06.009

HMI (1990). A survey of language awareness and foreign language taster courses. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office 1990. Available here (Accessed July 15, 2023)

Lanvers, U., & Martin, C. (2021). Choosing language options at secondary school in England. In U. Lanvers, A. S. Thompson, & M. East (Eds.), Language Learning in Anglophone Countries (pp. 89–115). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56654-8

Lanvers, U., Thompson, A. S., & East, M. (2021). Introduction: is language learning in Anglophone countries in crisis? In U. Lanvers, A. S. Thompson, & M. East (Eds.), Language Learning in Anglophone Countries (pp. 1–13). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56654-8

Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2020). Teaching and learning L2 in the classroom: it’s about time. Language Teaching, 53, 422–432. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444819000454

Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2019). Learning French in the UK setting: policy, classroom engagement and attainable learning outcomes. Apples Journal of Applied Language Studies, 13(1), pp. 69–93. https://doi.org/10.17011/apples/urn.201903011690

Myles, F. (2017). Learning foreign languages in primary schools: is younger better? Languages, Society & Policy, 1(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9806

Noort, M. Van Den, Struys, E., Bosch, P., Jaswetz, L., Perriard, B., Yeo, S., … Lim, S. (2019). Does the bilingual advantage in cognitive control exist and if so, what are its modulating factors? Behavioral Sciences, 9(27), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs9030027

Paap, K. R., Johnson, H. A., & Sawi, O. (2015). Bilingual advantages in executive functioning either do not exist or are restricted to very specific and undetermined circumstances. Cortex, 69, 265–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2015.04.014

Paap, K. R., Schwieter, J., & Paradis, M. (2019). The bilingual advantage debate: quantity and quality of the evidence. In J. W. Schwieter (Ed.), The handbook of the neuroscience of multilingualism (pp. 701–735). London:Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119387725.ch34

Shokrkon, A., & Nicoladis, E. (2021). Absence of a bilingual cognitive flexibility advantage: a replication study in preschoolers. PLoS ONE, 16(8), 14–18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255157

Van den Noort,M., Struys, E., Bosch, P., Jaswetz, L., Perriard, B., Yeo, S., … Lim, S. (2019). Does the bilingual advantage in cognitive control exist and if so, what are its modulating factors? Behavioral Sciences, 9(27), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs9030027

 

 

Neuromyths – new and improved

new-and-improved-nm

Our team has been hard at work updating our existing articles about common neuromyths (‘Neuro-hit or neuro-myth?’) to reflect the most up-to-date evidence. You’ll be relieved to hear that nothing has flipped from myth to fact or vice versa! So far, six articles have been updated, and the rest will follow over the coming months. Look out for the ‘Now Updated’ button to catch up on what the most current evidence is for each topic – some changes have been quite small, while other articles have had major rewrites!

Here are some highlights of the changes and additions:

  • Is ADHD on the rise in UK schools? This article now reflects changes to the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual [DSM]” – that’s how conditions are officially defined – which now allow individuals to be diagnosed with both ADHD and autism. We’ve added new content on contemporary research into sex differences in ADHD. The article also has a new title, a new image, and some rephrasing to improve inclusivity of the language.
  • Diet makes a difference to learning. Our additions to this article include evidence regarding the links between breakfast consumption and GCSE point scores, and the longer-term effects of healthier diet.
  • Mindfulness has a place in the classroom. We’ve extensively revised this article in light of evidence from a recent large-scale trial with teenagers in UK schools. The overall verdict has been changed to ‘It’s complicated’. Two outdated external resources have been removed and a newer resource on implementing mindfulness in schools has been added instead.
  • Girls and boys have different cognitive abilities. Throughout the article, language has been changed to reflect distinctions between sex and gender roles present in contemporary literature, with a note defining how the terms ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ were used in the article. We’ve added references to new research on topics that include: eye gaze strategies and gender identity on tests of mental rotation; math anxiety; and the role of cultural gender-egalitarian values in academic achievement. Lastly, we’ve added a new resource from the Women and Equalities Committee featuring lots of reports on sex differences in education and employment.
  • Well-rested children do better at school. We’ve added new findings on the role of delayed school start times in academic outcomes, sleep disruptions in neurodevelopmental conditions, and sleep benefits for explicit memory (i.e., learning facts!) in children.
  • Learning two languages gives an advantage at school. This revised article now features some reframing of content regarding the debate over the potential bilingual advantage in executive functioning skills. We’ve also dug into some of the finer details of methods in the studies, considering the diversity of multilinguals as a group.

We hope you enjoy catching up on the new evidence as much as we have!

If you’re hungry for more neuromyths content, or perhaps a bit time-poor for a full article, we are also currently releasing a series of videos that distil the major points from these updated pages to less than a minute each. The videos will be going out on our Twitter (@UoL_CEN) and our brand new TikTok page (@educationalneuroscience). Take a look and let us know if you like them!