Does homework work? The science of when and how to approach it

homework-img

In this blog, CEN member Mahi Elgamal takes a deep dive into the science of homework: what does the evidence tell us about its effectiveness?

Here’s the take-home:

Homework is not legally required in the UK, and neither the UK Department for Education nor the regulatory body Ofsted mandates it. However, many schools still assign homework, starting as early as reception class. Advocates argue that homework helps reinforce learning, promotes independence, develops life skills, and leads to better academic outcomes. Schools typically outline their homework policies in handbooks or on websites.

This article explores how homework supports learning, emphasising retrieval practice (recalling information without notes) and spacing (revisiting material over time) as the most effective strategies. These methods improve long-term retention and are more beneficial than passive techniques like rereading.

Additionally, the effectiveness of homework varies by age. For middle and high school students, it correlates with higher academic achievement, while its benefits for younger children are less clear.

For the full story, read on!

Although in the UK, homework is not compulsory by law, and neither the Department for Education (DfE) nor Ofsted requires schools to assign homework, many schools do set students homework from as young as reception class onwards. Some argue homework is beneficial to help reinforce learning, promote student independence, develop key life skills, and foster stronger academic outcomes. Many schools will set their expectations around homework with parents and students on their website or school handbooks and many schools will ask parents to sign the homework record. As such, parents might wonder: “when is a good time for homework” and “how can I get the most of my child’s homework?”

How does homework help my child’s learning?

Many parents, locked in nightly struggles over homework, may wonder whether and how these tasks benefit their children’s learning. Before discussing the best approach to homework, it is worth first asking: What is homework really meant to achieve?

Researchers have identified effective strategies for independent learning, particularly when applied to homework. Among these, “retrieval practice” and “spacing” stand out with the strongest evidence of effectiveness [1] [2]. Retrieval practice—recalling previously learned information—enhances long-term learning and memory [2].

In the same way, spacing, which involves revisiting material after some time rather than immediately, reinforces learning by encouraging active recall [2]. A homework task that requires children to answer questions about class material without referring to their notes exemplifies these strategies. Retrieval practice and similar learning strategies outperform passive techniques like rereading or reviewing material when it comes to strengthening knowledge gained in the classroom [2]. Homework can be seen as a great opportunity to put these strategies into practice and help foster the development of autonomous and self-regulated learning habits.

Homework across ages: Does it work the same for all children?

The effectiveness of homework can vary by age. For middle and high school students, it is associated with higher standardised scores in tests of academic achievement, while the benefits for younger children are less clear [3]. According to charity the Education Endowment Foundation, homework in primary schools tends to have a smaller average impact and remains under-researched compared to secondary education.

“Studies in secondary schools show greater impact of homework (+5 months additional progress) than in primary schools (+3 months)” – Education Endowment Foundation

Why might that be? One possible explanation could be that homework also comes with some non-academic benefits that are not easily measurable for younger children, like developing their sense of responsibility and independent problem-solving skills which might not be immediately reflected in their achievement in particular subject areas [4]. On the other hand, there are valid concerns about young children’s limited capacity to maintain attention on lengthy tasks and to have already developed solid study habits by tuning out distractions in their environment, compared to older children [5].

The “homework gap”: how does it affect children?

Homework can enhance academic growth for many students, but its impact often varies based on individual backgrounds and resources. Depending on how it is designed and supported, homework can either mitigate or widen socioeconomic-linked attainment gaps.

For disadvantaged children, homework can provide an opportunity to reinforce learning, particularly when they lack academic support at home. However, these children often face barriers, such as inadequate study spaces, limited technology access, unstable internet, and minimal parental guidance. These barriers, often referred to as the “homework gap,” highlight how socioeconomic disparities can lead to uneven academic outcomes [6].

In fact, disadvantaged children are far less likely to have quiet workspaces or reliable devices, and they often receive less parental support for completing homework. A Sutton Trust report, based on OECD PISA data, found that only 50% of the most disadvantaged 15-year-olds receive regular homework help from their parents, compared to 68% of their better-off peers [7]. This disparity means that even high-ability children from low-income families miss out on educational opportunities. In contrast, affluent families often have the resources to provide quiet, well-lit spaces, private tutoring, technology, and additional materials, giving their children an advantage [5].

Lower-income children, by comparison, struggle to complete assignments that require costly supplies or heavy parental involvement, amplifying inequities rather than reducing them [5]. This leads us to the next question: should homework be eliminated altogether?

“We should stop giving homework”—is this privilege speaking?

Eliminating or reducing homework could likely widen the achievement gap. Students from higher-income families benefit from various privileges—such as enriched language environments, access to extracurricular activities like tutoring, and cultural experiences—that are often unavailable to lower-income families. For the 4.3 million children in the UK living in poverty, homework is one tool that can help bridge this gap.

“ELIMINATING HOMEWORK MIGHT WIDEN THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP”

To address these disparities, schools can help by assigning homework that does not rely heavily on technology and extensive parental input. Initiatives such as homework clubs can provide structured environments and reliable access to resources [7]. Schools can also offer quiet study areas and workshops to help parents support their children’s learning. By implementing these measures, schools can create more equitable opportunities for disadvantaged children to keep up with their more affluent peers. However, in low socioeconomic schools, some of these measures may be challenging due to limited space and resources.

How can I best help my child with their homework?

Parental involvement in homework is often described as a “double-edged sword”, offering both opportunities and challenges to the parent-child relationship. While it is well-documented that parental engagement can positively influence student outcomes, the quality of support plays an important role in determining its effectiveness, with some difference seen across year groups and subjects [8], [9].

“PARENTS SHOULD GUIDE NOT CONTROL”

One way to scaffold motivation is through autonomy-supportive involvement, where parents guide rather than control—a method widely recognised as the most effective for enhancing achievement, especially in late childhood and adolescence [5], [10], [11]. Autonomy-supportive behaviours include avoiding controlling language and attitudes (such as invasive forms of help and constant monitoring), respecting children’s perspectives, and allowing them enough time to complete tasks independently rather than solving problems for them [12].

Providing structure—for example, helping to set clear goals, expectations, and directions—encourages a sense of internal control over learning and helps maintain feelings of competence [13]. Similarly, offering detailed instructions, action plans, and constructive feedback can further support children’s engagement [14].

This approach encourages children to develop their own schedules and solve problems independently, which nurtures both skill development and a sense of competence, while still being there for help. Controlling approaches, however, may hinder children’s ability to take initiative and reduce their intrinsic motivation and learning engagement [15], [16].

For example, an autonomy-supportive parent may seek the child’s input, try to understand their approach to solving the task, and encourage them to work independently. In contrast, a controlling parent would likely dictate how the homework should be done, offering little to no opportunity for the child to contribute to the conversation [17].

The benefits of autonomy-supportive involvement are twofold. First, it promotes skill development by enabling children to independently navigate challenges, enhancing their problem-solving abilities and self-efficacy [11]. Second, it supports their motivational growth by allowing them to take ownership of their learning, thereby increasing their engagement in academic tasks [16], [10].

A growing body of research suggests that parents adopting an autonomy-supportive approach can lead to improvements in school performance [17]. That is because when parents are overly controlling, children can miss the experience of tackling challenges on their own and may feel deprived of autonomy and sense of agency.

These positive effects of autonomy support begin early and extend into adolescence [18], [16]. Striking the right balance—where parents stepping in as helpful guides rather than taking over completely—allows children to feel capable and in charge of their learning and build not only academic skills but also critical motivational resources for sustained engagement in school [15], [16].

evenmorehomework

How parental involvement extends beyond grades

Effective parental involvement extends beyond academic outcomes, influencing other aspects of a child’s development, such as motivation, time management, and the ability to self-regulate. It involves modelling, reinforcing, and open dialogue to nurture positive attitudes, behaviours, and active engagement with learning [19].

For example, when parents show positive attitudes toward homework, it reflects in their children’s motivation, mood, and engagement in school learning [3]. It can influence how they allocate their time and effort to homework and develop a sense of personal responsibility for learning and task completion. Excessive demands—whether from parents, children, or teachers—can strain the parent-child relationship and create frustration, especially when a child struggles academically [20].

While it is no surprise that student achievement is often the focus when looking at parental involvement outcomes, it is equally important to consider its wider effects. Effective parental involvement in homework includes a range of learning outcomes that are closely linked to student achievement, such as the development of self-regulation skills and positive attitudes and behaviours towards learning. Although these proximal outcomes might be harder to measure than test scores, they play an important role in how children approach learning tasks and are crucial for their long-term academic and personal success [8].

Establishing study habits early in a child’s life provides a foundation for developing more advanced skills over time, much like scaffolding in construction. Introducing these habits later, such as during middle school or the teenage years, can be more challenging as routines are already well-established, and adolescents are often more influenced by their peers than by adults.

Is there such thing as the perfect time for homework?

While there is some evidence suggesting a morning advantage for cognitively demanding tasks [21], this research typically focuses on tasks conducted in a school setting (e.g., morning versus afternoon classes).

While direct studies on the optimal time of day for out-of-school homework are lacking, existing research suggests that aligning learning activities with a child’s chronotype could enhance cognitive performance [22]. For instance, younger children, particularly in preschool and kindergarten, tend to be more morning-oriented, with a shift toward “eveningness” occurring around puberty or adolescence. Evening-type adolescents, in particular, tend to show improved achievement and motivation in the afternoon compared to the morning, where they experience lower interest and joy in learning. This effect has been consistently observed across various studies [22].

“WHETHER A CHILD DOES THEIR HOMEWORK BEFORE TEA OR AFTER TEA, THE KEY IS A CONSISTENT ROUTINE”

Given these individual differences, some children may benefit from a break right after school to engage in physical activity or have a snack, while others may prefer to begin their homework immediately, taking advantage of the momentum from being in “school mode.”

Regardless of the timing, establishing a consistent routine is necessary. To encourage consistency, Harris Cooper—a leading homework researcher—recommends that younger children complete their homework at the same time every day, whether right after school, just before dinner, or shortly afterward. He also advises avoiding late-night homework sessions, as they may disrupt sleep and reduce productivity.

Quality over quantity of time spent

There is a positive association between time spent on homework and academic achievement [23]. However, how students manage their homework time is just as important as the amount of time spent. Research shows that academic success is closely tied to how much homework students actually complete, especially when they concentrate on finishing assigned tasks rather than just logging hours [24], [25].

“GOOD TIME MANAGEMENT CAN TRANSFORM MORE HOMEWORK INTO BETTER HOMEWORK”

Simply increasing homework time does not necessarily lead to better academic performance, and in some cases, excessive time spent may have a negative impact on achievement [24], [26]. The key lies in how that time is being managed—effective organisation and goal setting can transform “more homework” into “better homework” [24], [25].

Poor time management may diminish homework’s potential benefits [25]. Prioritizing quality and efficiency in homework over simply the length of time spent is important. Children who effectively manage their homework time not only complete more assignments but also achieve higher grades[27], [28].

Good time management goes together with improved behavioural engagement, helping children allocate their time wisely and avoid procrastination [26], [29]. Supporting children with organising and managing their homework time is one of the most reliable ways to improve both completion rates and academic achievement [28]. It also helps them resist the urge to procrastinate and to take on more challenging tasks instead of only opting for easier, more immediate, or pleasurable ones.

How much homework is too much?

“A good way to think about homework is the way you think about medication or dietary supplements. If you take too little, they’ll have no effect. If you take too much, they can kill you. If you take the right amount, you’ll get better.” – Prof. Harris Cooper, Duke University

We should reassure you that there’s no evidence that too much homework can kill you. Nevertheless, spending an excessive amount of time on homework can lead to mental fatigue, anxiety, and reduced readiness to learn [30]. Once children grasp the homework content, doing more may not be helpful. In fact, the benefits from additional homework may decrease over time, potentially even hitting a plateau [31], [32]. This means that teachers should make sure that homework is manageable and that it encourages critical thinking.

“WHEN IT COMES TO HOMEWORK, HOW IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN HOW MUCH”

For elementary students, more time spent on homework has been linked to lower performance [33]. Middle school students tend to achieve better outcomes with around 90 minutes of homework. Interestingly, those who go over this amount might perform worse than their peers spending less time on assignments [3], [34], [29]. High school students did see improvements with additional homework, but even their progress levelled off after about two hours a day. This could suggest that students who spend longer on homework might also be facing more difficulties with the material [3].

It is worth keeping in mind that excessive homework not only increases cognitive load and tiredness but might also cut down on the time available for other activities that contribute to children’s overall development.

Because the “optimal” homework duration is still uncertain and likely varies by subject age group, and individual needs, more research is needed to explore key factors such as homework duration, feedback practices, and moderating variables like age, gender, and parental involvement.

Some schools follow the “10-minute rule,” which recommends 10 minutes of homework per night in first grade, adding 10 minutes for each subsequent grade [35]. This serves as a rough anchor, but this could still vary based on assignment type and students’ needs—high-interest reading may justify longer homework, while memorisation tasks may require less time. More research is also needed on the differing impacts by subject matter. The takeaway here is that when it comes to homework “how is more important than how much” [29].

Why does homework stress students out?

Negative affect and stress during homework can undermine its benefits, causing students to procrastinate, disengage, or exert minimal effort on assignments [24]. Stress often arises when tasks seem excessively demanding or time-intensive, creating a mismatch between a child’s abilities and the expectations placed on them [36]. This imbalance reduces both the child’s and the parent’s confidence in their capabilities or available resources, further contributing to stress.

There is a direct link between the number of hours devoted to homework and increased stress levels, which is also reflected in physical health concerns [37]. Many children experience low self-efficacy while doing homework [36] and believe it to be irrelevant, a task that must be done, with no room for choice, which makes the situation even more stressful [38].

“HOMEWORK CAN BE TEDIOUS AND MENTALLY TAXING”

However, not all homework is equally stressful. Integrating student choice and relevance, alongside adequate parental support, can help reduce stress levels [36]. Likewise, well-designed homework (e.g., well-selected and cognitively challenging tasks) that aligns with students’ skills and interests can improve self-efficacy and reduce feelings of irrelevance [38].

This highlights the importance of thoughtful task design and a supportive environment to help students manage stress and engage more effectively with homework. It is also important to acknowledge that homework can be tedious and mentally taxing, and there are natural limits to a student’s ability to concentrate.

When homework becomes excessive, it can not only elevate stress but also disrupt sleep, leading to reduced performance in class or tests and ultimately undermining students’ readiness to learn [39]. To ensure homework is both effective and manageable, teachers and school administrators should work together to assign the appropriate amount of homework for each year group [30].

How can the right kind of break help?

Children’s brains, particularly those of younger children, do not yet have the resources for extended periods of focus without breaks [40]. This limitation is linked to the ongoing development of the prefrontal cortex, which is one of the last brain regions to mature [41]. As this region matures, it plays an important role in cognitive functions such as attention and memory. However, this maturation process is gradual, meaning that younger children may struggle to maintain focus for extended periods [41]. When this occurs, children may become restless, distracted, verbally complain, and find it more challenging to retain new information.

“TAKING BREAKS CAN IMPROVE ATTENTION WHICH IS PARTICULARLY EFFECTIVE FOR HOMEWORK”

Young children’s attention is maximised when their task efforts are spaced out. This is consistent with the concept of ‘distributed effort’, which suggests that children learn better when their tasks are broken up, allowing their efforts to be spread across time rather than sustained without rest [40]. Taking breaks before frustration or lack of focus sets in can be beneficial. These breaks can take different forms; for example some research suggests that integrating physical activity, particularly those that are cognitively engaging, helps sustain children’s attention-to-task and processing speed [42]. These breaks have been shown to improve attention and executive functions, which are particularly effective for homework [42], [43].

Some examples from the studies include activities such as instructing children to touch numbers placed on the ground by running through them, as well as tasks involving quick physical responses, like imitating a jump from a horse when hearing the keyword “hurdle.” The nature of these activities can vary depending on factors such as the child’s age, available resources, etc.

So, whether the break is physically vigorous or sedentary, the important factor is that a break—of any form—provides the opportunity for rest and spacing out effort over time [40].

Can a sweet snack boost my child’s focus?

One common question among parents is whether children should eat before or after completing homework and whether certain food, including sugar, can provide a short-term cognitive boost. Research shows that consuming carbohydrates increases blood glucose levels, which in turn helps improve memory and attention [44].

“GO ON, HAVE A SNACK”

For example, when children consumed a sugary snack (containing predominately simple carbohydrates), their performance on a task requiring sustained attention was considerably better than when they had a non-caloric snack [44]. This suggests how even a small, energy-rich snack can help a child stay focused [44].

Importantly, glucose consumption does not appear to lead to hyperactivity, either in typically developing children or those with attention deficit disorder [45]. In fact, a late afternoon energy-rich snack can improve cognitive performance, especially on tasks requiring sustained attention. It can also improve spatial memory, as shown by better performance on map learning and recall tasks [46]. However, factors like the time of day, a child’s age, the type of task at hand, and whether they have fasted can all influence how a sugary snack affects cognitive performance [44].

So where are we now?

Homework remains as one of the more challenging pedagogical strategies to study. The most reliable research designs–especially those that randomly assign students to either receive homework or not–can only be done at the level of specific subjects. Conducting definitive studies on the long-term effects of homework is nearly impossible. Despite these limitations, most researchers and educators seem to agree that homework does have positive effects.

“RESEARCH ON THE LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF HOMEWORK IS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE BUT MOST EDUCATORS AGREE IT HAS POSITIVE EFFECTS”

What is now needed is more research focused on how children can make the most of these benefits while minimising potential downsides based on their different backgrounds and the nature of assignments. The key factors are how and when assignments are given. Both the positive and negative effects can vary based on a student’s background and home environment, as well as the type and amount of homework they receive.

The consensus is clear: quality matters more than quantity. Short, well-designed assignments are far more effective than lengthy, poorly constructed ones, which risk undermining learning altogether. Assigning homework that spark a student’s interest and creativity tend to engage them more effectively. However, what constitutes a “quality assignment” can differ based on the subject. For instance, areas like spelling, vocabulary, and foreign language often require practice and memorisation. While these assignments might not seem very exciting, they play a crucial role, nonetheless.

The key for parents, educators, and researchers is to focus on tailoring homework to students’ needs and contexts, ensuring it is purposeful, balanced, and meaningful. By identifying strategies that enhance the positive effects while mitigating the negative ones, homework can become a more effective tool for fostering learning and development.

References

[1]             J. Dunlosky, K. A. Rawson, E. J. Marsh, M. J. Nathan, and D. T. Willingham, ‘Improving Students’ Learning with Effective Learning Techniques: Promising Directions From Cognitive and Educational Psychology’, Psychol. Sci. Public Interest, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 4–58, Jan. 2013, doi: 10.1177/1529100612453266.

[2]             H. L. I. Roediger and A. C. Butler, ‘The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention’, Trends Cogn. Sci., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 20–27, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.003.

[3]             H. Cooper, J. C. Robinson, and E. A. Patall, ‘Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987–2003’, Rev. Educ. Res., vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 1–62, 2006, doi: 10.3102/00346543076001001.

[4]             B. J. Zimmerman and A. Kitsantas, ‘Homework practices and academic achievement: The mediating role of self-efficacy and perceived responsibility beliefs’, Contemp. Educ. Psychol., vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 397–417, 2005, doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.05.003.

[5]             H. Cooper and J. C. Valentine, ‘Using research to answer practical questions about homework’, Educ. Psychol., vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 143–153, 2001, doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3603_1.

[6]             S. L. Hofferth and J. F. Sandberg, ‘How American children spend their time’, J. Marriage Fam., vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 295–308, 2001, doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00295.x.

[7]             S. Trust, ‘Homework: Lessons from PISA’. 2017.

[8]             E. A. Patall, H. Cooper, and J. C. Robinson, ‘Parent Involvement in Homework: A Research Synthesis’, Rev. Educ. Res., vol. 78, no. 4, pp. 1039–1101, 2008, doi: 10.3102/0034654308325185.

[9]             N. E. Hill and D. F. Tyson, ‘Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement’, Dev. Psychol., vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 740–763, 2009, doi: 10.1037/a0015362.

[10]          E. M. Pomerantz, E. A. Moorman, and S. D. Litwack, ‘The how, whom, and why of parents’ involvement in children’s academic lives: More is not always better’, Rev. Educ. Res., vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 373–410, 2007, doi: 10.3102/003465430305567.

[11]          F. F. Ng, G. A. Kenney-Benson, and E. M. Pomerantz, ‘Children’s achievement moderates the effects of mothers’ use of control and autonomy support’, Child Dev., vol. 75, no. 3, pp. 764–780, 2004, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00705. x.

[12]          S. T. Gurland and W. S. Grolnick, ‘Perceived threat, controlling parenting, and children’s achievement orientations’, Motiv. Emot., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 103–121, 2005, doi: 10.1007/s11031-005-7956-2.

[13]          E. Skinner, C. Furrer, G. Marchand, and T. Kinderman, ‘Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic?’, J. Educ. Psychol., vol. 100, pp. 765–781, 2008, doi: 10.1037/a0028089.

[14]          H. Jang, J. Reeve, and E. L. Deci, ‘Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure’, J. Educ. Psychol., vol. 102, no. 3, pp. 588–600, 2010, doi: 10.1037/a0019682.

[15]          E. L. Deci and R. M. Ryan, Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. Springer Science & Business Media, 1985. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7.

[16]          W. S. Grolnick, The psychology of parental control: How well-meant parenting backfires. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 2003.

[17]          A. C. Vasquez, E. A. Patall, C. J. Fong, A. S. Corrigan, and L. Pine, ‘Parent Autonomy Support, Academic Achievement, and Psychosocial Functioning: a Meta-analysis of Research’, Educ. Psychol. Rev., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 605–644, Sep. 2016, doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9329-z.

[18]          G. S. Ginsburg and P. Bronstein, ‘Family factors related to children’s intrinsic/extrinsic motivational orientation and academic performance’, Child Dev., vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 1461–1474, 1993, doi: 10.2307/1131546.

[19]          K. V. Hoover-Dempsey and H. M. Sandler, ‘Parental involvement in children’s education: Why does it make a difference?’, Teach. Coll. Rec., vol. 97, no. 2, pp. 310–331, 1995, doi: 10.1177/016146819509700202.

[20]          M. Holland et al., ‘Homework and Children in Grades 3–6: Purpose, Policy and Non-Academic Impact’, Child Youth Care Forum, vol. 50, pp. 631–651, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10566-021-096.

[21]          N. G. Pope, ‘How the Time of Day Affects Productivity: Evidence from School Schedules’, Rev. Econ. Stat., vol. 98, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2016, doi: 10.1162/REST_a_00525.

[22]          H. Itzek-Greulich, C. Randler, and C. Vollmer, ‘The interaction of chronotype and time of day in a science course: Adolescent evening types learn more and are more motivated in the afternoon’, Learn. Individ. Differ., vol. 51, pp. 189–198, Oct. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2016.09.013.

[23]          M. Holmes and P. Croll, ‘Time spent on homework and academic achievement’, Educ. Res., vol. 31, pp. 36–45, 1989, doi: 10.1080/0013188890310104.

[24]          U. Trautwein, I. Schnyder, A. Niggli, M. Neumann, and O. Lüdtke, ‘Chameleon effects in homework research: The homework–achievement association depends on the measures used and the level of analysis chosen’, Contemp. Educ. Psychol., vol. 34, pp. 77–88, 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.09.001.

[25]          J. C. Núñez, N. Suárez, P. Rosário, G. Vallejo, A. Valle, and J. L. Epstein, ‘Relationships between perceived parental involvement in homework, student homework behaviors, and academic achievement: differences among elementary, junior high, and high school students’, Metacognition Learn., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 375–406, Dec. 2015, doi: 10.1007/s11409-015-9135-5.

[26]          S. Dettmers, U. Trautwein, M. Lüdtke, M. Kunter, and J. Baumert, ‘Homework works if homework quality is high: Using multilevel modeling to predict the development of achievement in mathematics’, J. Educ. Psychol., vol. 102, pp. 467–482, 2010, doi: 10.1037/a0018453.

[27]          B. J. C. Claessens, W. van Eerde, C. G. Rutte, and R. A. Roe, ‘A review of the time management literature’, Pers. Rev., vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 255–276, 2007, doi: 10.1108/00483480710726136.

[28]          J. Xu, ‘Predicting homework time management at the secondary school level: A multilevel analysis’, Learn. Individ. Differ., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 34–39, 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2009.11.001.

[29]          R. Fernández-Alonso, J. Suárez-Álvarez, and J. Muñiz, ‘Adolescents’ homework performance in mathematics and science: Personal factors and teaching practices’, J. Educ. Psychol., vol. 107, no. 4, pp. 1075–1085, 2015, doi: 10.1037/edu0000032.

[30]          L. Guo et al., ‘The relationship between homework time and academic performance among K-12: A systematic review’, Campbell Syst. Rev., vol. 20, no. 3, p. e1431, 2024, doi: 10.1002/c.

[31]          P. L. Ackerman, T. Chamorro-Premuzic, and A. Furnham, ‘Trait complexes and academic achievement: old and new ways of examining personality in educational contexts’, Br. J. Educ. Psychol., vol. 81, no. Pt 1, pp. 27–40, 2011, doi: 10.1348/000709910X522564.

[32]          D. Bartelet, J. Ghysels, W. Groot, C. Haelermans, and H. Maassen van den Brink, ‘The differential effect of basic mathematics skills homework via a web‐based intelligent tutoring system across achievement subgroups and mathematics domains: A randomized field experiment’, J. Educ. Psychol., vol. 108, no. 1, pp. 1–20, 2016, doi: 10.1037/edu0000051.

[33]          S. Farrow, P. Tymms, and B. Henderson, ‘Homework and Attainment in Primary Schools’, Br. Educ. Res. J., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 323–341, 1999.

[34]          L. Shumow, Homework and study habits. IAP Information Age Publishing, 2011.

[35]          S. Redding, ‘Parents and learning’. UNESCO Publications, 2000.

[36]          A. Moè, I. Katz, and M. Alesi, ‘Scaffolding for motivation by parents, and child homework motivations and emotions: Effects of a training programme’, Br. J. Educ. Psychol., vol. 88, pp. 323–344, 2018, doi: 10.1111/bjep.12216.

[37]          N. M. Kouzma and G. A. Kennedy, ‘Homework, stress, and mood disturbance in senior high school students’, Psychol. Rep., vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 193–198, 2002, doi: 10.2466/pr0.2002.91.1.193.

[38]          J. Xu, ‘Purposes for doing homework reported by middle and high school students’, J. Educ. Res., vol. 99, no. 1, pp. 46–55, 2005.

[39]          S. C. Yeo, J. Tan, J. C. Lo, M. W. L. Chee, and J. J. Gooley, ‘Associations of time spent on homework or studying with nocturnal sleep behavior and depression symptoms in adolescents from Singapore’, Sleep Health, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 758–766, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.sleh.2020.07.007.

[40]          A. D. Pellegrini and D. F. Bjorklund, ‘The role of recess in children’s cognitive performance’, Educ. Psychol., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 35–40, Jan. 1997, doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep3201_3.

[41]          B. J. Casey, J. N. Giedd, and K. M. Thomas, ‘Structural and functional brain development and its relation to cognitive development’, Biol. Psychol., vol. 54, no. 1–3, pp. 241–257, 2000, doi: 10.1016/s0301-0511(00)00058-2.

[42]          M. Schmidt, V. Benzing, and M. Kamer, ‘Classroom-based physical activity breaks and children’s attention: Cognitive engagement work!’, Front. Psychol., vol. 7, 2016, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01474.

[43]          F. Egger, V. Benzing, A. Conzelmann, and M. Schmidt, ‘Boost your brain, while having a break! The effects of long-term cognitively engaging physical activity breaks on children’s executive functions and academic achievement’, PLoS ONE, vol. 14, 2019.

[44]          C. Busch, H. Taylor, R. Kanarek, and P. Holcomb, ‘The effects of a confectionery snack on attention in young boys’, Physiol. Behav., vol. 77, pp. 333–340, 2002, doi: 10.1016/S0031-9384(02)00882-X.

[45]          M. Wolraich, R. Milich, P. Stumbo, and F. Schultz, ‘Effects of sucrose ingestion on the behavior of hyperactive boys’, J. Pediatr., vol. 106, no. 4, pp. 675–682, 1985, doi: 10.1016/s0022-3476(85)80102-5.

[46]          C. R. Mahoney, H. A. Taylor, and R. B. Kanarek, ‘Effect of an afternoon confectionery snack on cognitive processes critical to learning’, Physiol. Behav., vol. 90, no. 2–3, pp. 344–352, 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2006.09.033.

Upcoming IMBES 2024 conference in Leuven, Belgium!

leuvenThe International Mind Brain and Education Society (IMBES) are thrilled to announce that the 2024 conference will be held from 10 – 12 July in Leuven, Belgium! The meeting will be jointly organised by IMBES and EARLI SIG 22.

The primary objective of this joint conference is to showcase cutting-edge research where the fields of neurosciences, educational sciences, developmental sciences, and cognitive sciences intersect. The overarching goal is to advance the current state of knowledge and foster meaningful dialogue between scientists, practitioners, and policy makers within the realm of mind, brain, and education.

IMBES are delighted to announce their distinguished keynote speakers for this event, namely Stanislas Dehaene (Unicog, Paris), Jennie Grammer (University of California LA, US), and Duncan Astle (University of Cambridge, UK).

 If you are interested, please mark your calendars with the following important deadlines:

Opening registrations: 15 January 2024
Abstract submission deadline: 1 February 2024
Author notification: 1 March 2024
Early bird registration deadline: 1 May 2024
Closing registrations: 26 June 2024
Conference dates: 10 – 12 July 2024

Should you have any questions or remarks about this conference, you can always reach the organisers at info@imbes2024.org. If you wish to stay informed about the IMBES 2024 updates, do not hesitate to subscribe to the mailing list and/or check out the website for more information!

“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.

Using neurotechnology in the classroom

comunicar_frontcover

In a new issue of the educational journal Comunicar, Jo van Herwegen and Michael Thomas from the CEN have teamed up with María-José Hernández-Serrano from the University of Salamanca in Spain to co-edit a special edition on the use of neurotechnology in the classroom.

What counts as a neurotechnology? Neurotechnology comprises a range of techniques that offer information about the operation of the brain separate from how it shows up in behaviour, especially the kinds of behaviour that educators typically monitor to track students’ progress in learning. The use of neurotechnology is therefore rooted in the assumption that the way that learning works in the brain will be relevant for educators.

Neurotechnologies might directly reflect physiological markers of brain function, such as in the brain’s electrical discharges (electroencephalography or EEG) or its regional oxygenated blood flow (functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy or fNIRs). They may reflect body markers of the operation of the sympathetic autonomic nervous system, the network of nerves that helps the body activate its “fight-or-flight” response. Such markers often index emotional processes (for example, the electrical conductance of the surface of the skin, which depends on sweat release, so-called electrodermal activity). Or they may detect subtle behavioural markers reflecting attention processes or memory retrieval (for example, eye-tracking or pupil dilation). Together, these measures can offer a window on students’ engagement in the classroom, their current knowledge, their emotional state, and the nature of learning as it unfolds.

There are two advantages that neurotechnology can potentially bring to the classroom. First, it can offer educators real-time information to guide practices, either on the current state of their students or the effectiveness of the teacher’s current activities – though the technical challenge of instantly turning rich neurotechnology data into an educationally usable form renders this still, perhaps, a promise rather than a reality.

The second advantage is that using neurotechnologies in the classroom provides greater ecologically validity to study learning and instruction in the context where it occurs, rather than in the artificially controlled context of the laboratory. This means that the use of neurotechnologies in the classroom engages with the embodied sensory, emotional, and social context in which teaching and learning actually occur.

The special Issue is a contribution to this emerging field, compiling a variety of studies conducted in Spain, Portugal, Latin America, and Taiwan, carried out with different neurotechnologies and approaches, from different perspectives. An introduction to the volume and an overview of the papers can be found here.

Learning and Reasoning Group

e86_2

The Centre for Educational Neuroscience is establishing a new working group to investigate the relationship between reasoning and learning in cognition.

Organised by Dr Selma Dündar-Coecke and Semir Tatlidil, the group brings together researchers from multiple disciplinary perspectives with the aim of elucidating the mechanisms of learning and reasoning and considering pathways to informing education and artificial intelligence.

Each month, the group will host an online seminar with experts in cognition, development, artificial intelligence and education.

To register for these seminars, please complete this form.

 

andreas-dWednesday 24th November at 4 pm (UK time)

Professor Andreas Demetriou
University of Nicosia

Causal Reasoning: Its role in the architecture and development of the mind

 

 

 

 

steve-sloman

Wednesday 15th December at 4 pm (UK time)

Professor Steven Sloman
Brown University

The Limits of Causal Reasoning in Human and Machine Learning

 

 

 

 

wnp2-p8j_400x400

Wednesday 16th February at 4 pm (UK time)

Dr Ciarán Gilligan-Lee
University College London

Learning and reasoning at different levels of Pearl’s Causal Hierarchy

 

NeuroSENse launch event and teacher resources

header-image

This week, the Centre for Educational Neuroscience launched a range of free ‘NeuroSENse‘ teacher resources to help raise awareness of neuromyths related to neurodevelopmental disorders and special educational needs.

The NeuroSENse resources were launched with an online twilight event attended by teachers, SEND specialists and school leaders. The event started with Dr Jo Van Hewegen discussing a recent study conducted by her lab on the prevalence of neuromyths in education and the general public. Dr Van Herwegen described that whilst the general public and educators rated similar numbers of neuromyths as true, neuromyths related to neurodevelopmental disorders were more commonly believed to be true compared to general neuromyths about learning.

Following Dr Van Herwegen, Matthew Slocombe described several focus groups conducted with teachers, SENDCos, teaching assistants, and school leaders to understand which neuromyths are common in education and what causes them. Based on the findings of these focus groups, Dr Van Herwegen went on to discuss several approaches schools can take to help address neuromyths related to special educational needs and disabilities.

poster-image

We then moved on to a series of short presentations from Dr Jo Van Herwegen, Matthew Slocombe, Prof Chloe Marshall, and Dr Rebecca Gordon, who described the new NeuroSENse blogs on common neuromyths related to ADHD, autism, deafness, dyslexia, and intellectual disabilities.

blogs-image

Finally, Dr Jamie Gaplin from the National Association for Special Educational Needs and Prof Michael Thomas discussed neuromyths within the broader contexts of SEND support and neuroscience, highlighting the value of dialogue between practitioners and researchers for addressing neuromyths in education.

Visit the NeuroSENse page to access the teacher resources and keep up-to-date with NeuroSENse news and events.

NeuroSENse launch event

neurosense-second-event-flyer-2

We are delighted to invite you to our second NeuroSENse twilight session, ‘Addressing Neuromyths in SEND’, where we will be launching our new awareness campaign on neuromyths related to special educational needs and developmental disorders.

The twilight session will take place online on Wednesday 3rd November from 5.00 pm to 6.30 pm (UK time). We welcome all teachers, SEND specialists and researchers to attend.

To attend, please register for free here.

During the session, we will introduce our new free online teacher resources on neuromyths in special educational needs and developmental disorders. We will also have presentations and discussions on neuromyths in SEND and educational neuroscience from Dr Jo Van Herwegen (Psychologist at UCL Institute of Education), Prof Michael Thomas (Neuroscientist at Birkbeck, University of London), and Dr Jamie Galpin (Education Officer at National Association for Special Educational Needs).

For those unable to attend, we will distribute a recording of the event via the registration mailing list. The recording of our previous twilight session in June can be viewed below.

Symposium on the psychological impact of poverty

bna2021-image-2

Michael Thomas, Director of the CEN, recently chaired a symposium at the British Neuroscience Association Festival of Neuroscience on psychological perspectives on poverty. The symposium was convened and sponsored by the British Psychological Society. All of the 12-minute presentations from the symposium are available to view below.

Over the last decade, there has been an increasing amount of work in cognitive neuroscience applied to poverty. However, differences in socioeconomic status are very much a social and structural phenomenon, and the contribution of psychology and neuroscience therefore needs to be carefully contextualised. Moreover, research into poverty takes place against the backdrop of an urgent need to alleviate the consequences of poverty, particularly on children’s development, and to reduce inequality in society (gaps which have been exacerbated by the pandemic). Therefore, research in this area must be considered in relation to government policy.

In this symposium, we hear from five speakers, considering poverty from multiple angles. Sebastian Lipina (Unit of Applied Neurobiology UNA, CEMIC-CONICET, Buenos Aires, Argentina) begins by providing an overview of contemporary evidence from neuroscientific studies of childhood poverty, including mediating factors and the impact of the first generation of neuroscientific interventions.

Michael Thomas (Birkbeck, University of London, UK) then discusses the relationship between socioeconomic status and educational achievement, addressing the role of executive functions as a potential mediating factor, and considering what policymakers should take from recent evidence that poverty is associated with differences in children’s brain structure.

In the third talk, Jennifer Sheehy-Skeffington (London School of Economics, UK) focuses on decision making in the context of poverty, and how apparently poor decision making – with respect to long-term educational, financial, and health outcomes – may be seen as an adaptive response to the challenges of economic hardship.

In the fourth talk, Philip Murphy (Edge Hill University) addresses the relationship between addiction and poverty, considering the role of addiction in creating a cycle that sustains poverty, and how neuroscience insights point to possible interventions.

In the final talk, Sophie Wickham (University of Liverpool, UK) establishes the links to policy, considering how policy decisions over the last decade have led to a rise in child poverty in the UK, and how a mental-health focus in future policy making could improve outcomes.

Rebecca Gordon and Natasha Kirkham join the CEN management committee

The CEN is delighted to welcome Dr Rebecca Gordon and Professor Natasha Kirkham as new members of the CEN management committee.

rebecca-photo

Rebecca Gordon is a Chartered Psychologist at the UCL Institute of Education where she is currently the Academic Head of Learning and Teaching. She also lectures in cognitive psychology, educational neuroscience, and research methods and statistics for the psychology undergraduate and Masters programmes at the UCL Institute of Education.

Rebecca’s research focuses on working memory and executive functions in children and adults as a means for understanding higher-order cognitive abilities and cognitive impairments. Her current work examines aspects of executive function and motor control as they apply to different curriculum areas, particularly mathematics and science learning.

natasha-kirkham-2Natasha Kirkham is Professor of Developmental Psychology at Birkbeck, University of London. She is also Chair of Ethics for the School of Science at Birkbeck. In addition to her research, Natasha works on various projects, including public science communication events and SOFAR, a society dedicated to supporting women in science.

Natasha’s research focuses on the development of visuospatial understanding, cognition, and attention in infants and preschool-age children. In particular, her research addresses the questions of how infants learn about their visuospatial environment and what are the roles of attention and memory in young children’s learning and development. Over the past 5 years, Natasha’s work has been focussing on how the home environment, specifically noise and household chaos, affects the development of attention, and eventual academic outcomes.

 

Using retrieval practice to promote long-term retention

Over the past three years, Dr. Alice Latimier (D.E.C, Ecole Normale Supérieure) has studied which learning practices best promote long-term memory retention. In this blog post, she tells us about her PhD project and her main findings. 

pic_aliceMy supervisor Franck Ramus and I wanted to know which learning practices best promote long-term retention, based on the science of learning. A review of the literature indicated that commonly used learning strategies, such as reading, blocked studying (e.g. studying the same content in a given session instead of interleaving with other contents), and massed studying (e.g. having a long session instead of multiple, shorter ones that are spaced through time) are not necessarily the most efficient ones. Retrieval practice and spaced learning, although less frequently used (e.g., Dunlosky et al. 2013; Weinstein et al., 2018), have been shown to promote better long-term retention among a great variety of populations and pedagogical contents (Brown, Roediger & McDaniel, 2014).

We first focused on retrieval practice. Over the past decade, research in psychology has demonstrated that practicing retrieval methods is particularly efficient because it creates a testing effect (e.g., Roediger & Karpicke, 2006): retrieving newly learned information from memory is an active process that consolidates information. It can be done via free recall (i.e. recovering as much information on a given topic as possible), cued recall (i.e. recovering information from memory via cues, often given by teachers), Multiple Choice Questions (i.e. either factual MCQ for definitions or inference-based MCQ), or flashcards (i.e. presenting one question on one side, the answer on the other). Whatever the format of the practice session, the learner should try to retrieve the information that has just been presented in the context of a new lecture (see for recent meta-analyses: Rowland, 2014; Adesope et al., 2017). My question of interest was ‘How can we optimize the benefits of retrieval practice when exposed to the content of a lecture?’.

didasklogoMy project was lead in partnership with the start-up company Didask, which designed an “evidence-based” teaching platform. On this platform, each course consists of a set of modules organised in a logical order. A module is an elementary learning unit, including both learning material (text, videos, pictures) and a corresponding training quiz (e.g. multiple choice, pairwise matching, ordering, sorting into categories etc.), lasting in total between 5 and 15 min. To carry out our experiments, we used a modified version of Didask that allowed us to specify several learning conditions and to control the learning environment, in particular, the order in which the pedagogical content and the quiz were arranged with each other. We designed three experiments investigating the benefits of different placements and schedules of retrieval practice episodes on the long-term retention of new information.

Experiment 1 – Retrieval practice is best used after, rather than before being exposed to a course

In the first experiment, we studied whether students should use retrieval practice before or after a learning session (Latimier et al., 2019). Recent research found that taking a test even before being exposed to learning content enhances memory retention compared to having no retrieval practice at all. For the first time, our experiment directly compared the benefits of using quizzes for memory consolidation, before (Quiz-reading group) and after (Reading-quiz group) reading an online course, relative to an extended reading condition (Reading-reading group). We used material from a course on DNA. The retention of information was asssessed seven days after the learning session (composed of the reading only or reading and quizz components).

Final performances revealed a significant advantage in memory retention for the Reading-quiz group over the Quiz-reading group and the Reading-reading group. The Quiz-reading group out-performed the Reading-reading group. This pertained to both trained and untrained information. Thus, using a retrieval practice after being exposed to new knowledge appears to bring both specific and general learning benefits. Overall, our results do not support the specific idea that a pre-test on the information of the subsequent text passage improves learning more than a post-test.

didask_learning

Experiment 2 – The length of the retrieval practice episode does not impact its efficiency

The second experiment went a step further and investigated the optimal lengths of both the learning units and the retrieval practice episodes. In other words: In how many chunks should the learning content be separated?. This question is less explored in the literature despite being very relevant to students and teachers. Our experiment demonstrated that the granularity of the learning contents is particularly of interest when learning with successive readings: short reading passages led to a better retention than longer readings. However, when learning with retrieval practice, granularity did not matter for long-term retention.

Experiment 3 – Spaced retrieval practice is not better than crammed retrieval practice at short term exams

Finally, the last experiment raised the question of the optimal schedule of repeated retrieval practice and reading. Indeed, decades of research in the science of learning demonstrated that inserting a time interval between the study sessions promotes better consolidation than massed practice, where learning the same piece of information in a repetitive fashion occurs without inter-study interval (i.e., spacing effect, Cepeda et al., 2006, Kang, 2016). In this experiment, we wanted to compare 4 learning strategies that mimicked the ones students would use to review a course before an exam: crammed re-reading, spaced re-reading, crammed retrieval practice, and spaced retrieval practice. The hypothesis was that combining both retrieval practice and spacing might enhance long term retention better than the other three strategies. Our main results provided a replication of the well-known testing effect (retrieval practice was better than just reading) but not of the spacing effect. Moreover, and contrary to our predictions, the combination of both learning strategies did not lead to significantly better retention compared to crammed retrieval practice. This result suggests that further research should focus on the parameters that promote a spacing effect (e.g., inter-study interval, retention interval, type of contents, learners’ characteristics…).  Overall, the results of my thesis provide a better understanding to how learners should use retrieval practice to aid memory retention, and suggest new research questions in optimizing learning.

Practical implications for the learners and teachers

 Throughout my studies, it was particularly important to find a balance between (a) realism, using real life learning contents extracted from the French high school curriculum and from professional training, and (b) experimental rigor, by designing well-controlled and randomized set up as well as recruiting a large sample of adult participants with a great diversity of socio-demographic characteristics. By being realistic yet rigorous, it is possible to derive practical recommendations.

My results suggest to try and implement retrieval practice, because it can be considered as a real learning tool to consolidate new knowledge as well as to promote knowledge transfer (Agarwal, Bain, & Chamberlain, 2012). Concrete examples on how to implement retrieval practice can be found here. While being tested after the exposure to pedagogical resources is optimal to consolidate and assess what is understood and what is not, being tested before could be very useful for the teacher to assess prior knowledge, and for students to be introduced to new learning concepts.

Digital learning tools seem very appropriate to integrate retrieval practice in the routine of the classroom. There is an amazing diversity of platforms for teachers and learners to develop formative assessment and self-testing (Plickers, Quizlet, Polleverywhere, SuperMemo, Google forms, Kahoot!). These digital tools do not replace the expertise of the teachers but help them to promote active learning. Furthermore, apart from the benefits on memory retention, retrieval practice promotes self-regulated learning by stimulating students’ metacognitive abilities. They can better estimate their feeling of knowing, to avoid the illusion of mastery and planning relevant reviewing activities (Littrell‐Baez, Friend, Caccamise, & Okochi, 2015, Fernandez & Jamet, 2017). It also fosters motivation and attentional focus on complex and lengthy contents. It should be mentioned that retrieval practice is even stronger with rich and elaborative feedback – without it the learners can’t properly identify how to improve their knowledge (Butler & Roediger, 2008). A combination of learning strategies for which we have robust proof of efficacy can therefore be particulary efficient !


Alice’s project was funded by the Programme d’Investissement d’Avenir (call for proposals e-FRAN for “Espaces de formation, de recherche et d’animation numérique” in French) launched by the mission on the digitalisation of education in France.  This educational funding program aims at supporting different innovation projects to improve education based on research. The project gathered the association Synlab, which promotes the link between research and actors from education; the start-up company Didask; and 3 research teams in the field of cognitive psychology and machine learning.

Alice is now a postdoctoral researcher at the University Bourgogne Franche-Comté, in France, studying the impact of expertise on musical reading (Laboratory for Research on Learning and Developement). You can follow her @AliceLatimier.

For more resources on retrieval practice, and to learn more about strategies for effective learning, you can download pedagogical material on the Learning Scientists’ website.


References

Adesope, O. O., Trevisan, D. A., & Sundararajan, N. (2017). Rethinking the Use of Tests: A Meta Analysis of Practice Testing. Review of Educational Research, 87(3), 659-701. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316689306

Agarwal, P. K., Bain, P. M., & Chamberlain, R. W. (2012). The value of applied research: Retrieval practice improves classroom learning and recommendations from a teacher, a principal, and a scientist. Educational Psychology Review, 24(3), 437–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9210-2

Brown, P. C., Roediger (III), H. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make It Stick. Harvard University Press.

Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L. (2008). Feedback enhances the positive effects and reduces the negative effects of multiple-choice testing. Memory & Cognition, 36(3), 604–616. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.3.604

Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving Students’ Learning With Effective Learning Techniques: Promising Directions From Cognitive and Educational Psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest: A Journal of the American Psychological Society, 14(1), 4–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266

Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354–380. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354

Fernandez, J., & Jamet, E. (2017). Extending the testing effect to self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 12(2), 131–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-016-9163-9

Kang, S. H. K. (2016). Spaced Repetition Promotes Efficient and Effective Learning Policy Implications for Instruction. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215624708

Littrell‐Baez, M. K., Friend, A., Caccamise, D., & Okochi, C. (2015). Using Retrieval Practice and Metacognitive Skills to Improve Content Learning. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(8), 682–689. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.420

Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-Enhanced Learning Taking Memory Tests Improves Long-Term Retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x

Rowland, C. A. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: A meta-analytic review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1432–1463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037559

Weinstein, Yana, Madan, C. R., & Sumeracki, M. A. (2018). Teaching the science of learning. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 3(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-017-0087-y

 

Articles from the project

Latimier, A., Riegert, A., Ly, S. T., Ramus, F. Do spacing and retrieval practice effects interact? (in prep).

Latimier, A., Rierget, A., Ly, S. T., & Ramus, F. (2020, March 10). Retrieval practice promotes long-term retention irrespective of the placement. PsyArXiv, https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dk63q

Latimier, A., Peyre, H., & Ramus, F. (2020, March 5). A meta-analytic review of the benefit of spacing out retrieval practice episodes on retention. PsyArXiv, https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/kzy7u

Latimier, A., Riegert, A., Peyre, H., Ly, S.T., Casati, R., & Ramus, F. (2019). Does pre-testing promote better retention than post-testing? Npj Science of Learning, 4(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-019-0053-1