Category Archives: Uncategorized

Lindsey Richland discusses factors affecting maths performance

Posted on by
Reply

In today’s CEN seminar, Prof. Lindsey Richland talked about her research which looks at factors affecting maths performance – making connections (e.g. Teaching mathematics by comparison: Analog visibility as a double-edged sword), impact of executive functions (e.g. Executive function in learning mathematics by comparison: incorporating everyday classrooms into the science of learning) and impact of stereotyping and expectations (e.g. Stereotype Threat Effects on Learning From a Cognitively Demanding Mathematics Lesson).

“Children’s executive functions are well known to predict overall mathematics achievement, but their role in everyday classroom learning is not always considered in educational reform. Strategies for raising the quality of classroom mathematics instruction has led to the recommendation that teachers use more lessons designed to increase students’ engagement in higher level reasoning, yet teaching these lessons effectively for all students is challenging. I describe a series of experiments using one such instructional practice, comparing multiple solutions to key problems, to show that by considering the cognitive demands of such a specific learning context, we can infer ways to improve the likelihood of student learning and better understand mechanisms that may lead to achievement gaps. I’ll show that visual-spatial cues and reminders of relevant mathematics background may aid students in gaining more, while individual differences in executive function resources, pressure, and identity threats may exacerbate achievement gaps in learning from identical lessons.”

How a mobile phone game is helping dementia research

Posted on by
Reply

zita-slide-sea-quest

In last week’s CEN seminar, Zita Patai from UCL presented findings from a project involving a mobile phone game, Sea Hero Quest, to assess spatial abilities.

Zita writes:

“Human navigation behaviors vary across nations, cultures, genders and ages, but until recently it has not been feasible to measure this fundamental human capacity on a global scale.  Now, using a mobile phone based game, we have been able to measure spatial navigation ability in more than 2.5 million people around the world. Our results show that navigation ability declines with age, that gender differences can be explained by societal measures such as the gender gap index of a country, that people living in rural environments are better at finding their way around, and finally that behavior in the virtual game is related to real-world navigation ability. Additionally, data suggest that people with a genetic risk factor associated with Alzheimer’s dementia already show changes in navigation ability even though they are of middle age and are completely cognitively intact as measured with standard screening tests. These findings show that 1) we are able to, and should, measure human cognitive functions at a global scale rather than focus on small and homogeneous samples and 2) human navigation behavior may be a good measure by which to enable the early detection of dementia and potentially develop therapies in the future.”

 

You can read more about the project in this preprint (and here) and in a recent issue of Cell. You can also download and play the game here

You can follow Zita on Twitter @ZitaPatai

Teachers share their thoughts on research-based practice

Posted on by
Reply

alice-bowmer-photographAlice Bowmer is a teacher and researcher interested in early child development. She currently works in collaboration with UCL’s Institute of Education, and the arts charity Creative Futures. Welcome, Alice, to our teacher Q+A.

How do you keep up-to-date with the latest education research? Is it important to you whether the research uses particular methods?

I go to a variety of conferences, receive email information from colleagues, follow academics on twitter and receive weekly emails from particular journals.

To me, it is important to look at a wide range of methods and subject matter because I find that looking in only one direction gives you only part of a whole picture. I have a pretty flexible mind and so I often move from one subject to another, usually observing a variety of different methods along the way. Each method tends to give you an idea from one angle, and combined, it’s then possible to see from a variety of different angles, which I find helps perspective.

Could you tell us how research has influenced your teaching? 

Well, this is difficult as the two are not mutually exclusive in my life. I am teaching and researching most days of the week and the subject matter for both is largely related so I find that influence travels back and forth and I often don’t realise! I am still learning to be clear about how the two aspects are functioning supportively, but for now I can give one example.

When I began to research how children develop language skills, I took the theory I was reading and started to observe how it functioned in my own teaching practice.

At first I just observed how I might be facilitating, or not, communication and understanding during lessons with my students.

And after a while I began to clearly see that students didn’t always understand what I was expressing to them verbally. This could be to do with my use of language and/or the examples and gestures I used to support the given idea.

So from here I spent a lot of time experimenting with how I introduce concepts. This often involved using smaller or clearer verbal steps, allowing me to see at which point I lost the student’s attention or understanding. Then I can consider how to change my use of language, introduce the same idea in a different context to reinforce whatever the objective is, or, if it’s an attention issue I’ll try working at a different pace.

I also like to observe understanding from the opposite direction by asking students to use their own language to describe what has just happened – this is really interesting! It shows you what the student notices, how they link ideas together, how they use language as a form of expression and over time it supports the development of their note taking skills, which is a great by-product.

Generally, I would say that research has hugely impacted upon the way that I understand and communicate with my students during our work together.

How do you tell if something is working in the classroom? 

The most important factors to me are attention and engagement. When those elements are there, communication is possible. In my own experience as a teacher, attention and engagement can be facilitated by observing your own attention to what you do and to see if there is integrity in how you carry it out. I have not seen much focus on this in teaching research, perhaps because it isn’t easy to measure.

But in practice, teachers can usually perceive different levels of attention and engagement in both their individual students and the classroom atmosphere. I think that observing the dynamics of these factors is a good place to start.

What do you think researchers should focus on next (i.e., what are the gaps in our understanding, from a teacher’s perspective?)? 

I’d like to see research that looks more closely at the various connections between different subject matter, for instance, how do aspects of musical learning support skills in mathematics and vice versa? And following this, within teaching it would be useful to see research that clearly examines how teachers go about linking concepts across different subject matter e.g., how do teachers use language to make links between subject matter understandable to students?

At the moment, I am specifically interested in how teachers and students work together. One aspect of this is working from where the student is, in that moment, which in practice relies heavily on our attention and engagement rather than pre-determined lesson plans, objectives or ideals. It would be great to have some research on the effectiveness of this way of teaching. And I think more of an understanding here would help us escape the current obsession with measurement for ‘expected outcomes’.

Do you have any suggestions of how we can improve the communication and collaboration between teachers and education researchers? 

First of all, we have to see why collaboration could be mutually beneficial and when the interest is there, both parties then have to accept and respect the differences in their collective perspectives during all aspects of the collaborative process.

We also have to get to grips with how collaboration could work practically. I see a lot of potential in teachers delivering interventions with training and support from researchers. This could improve both the quality and quantity of the intervention for researchers as well as getting the latest research out to those who could impact student outcomes the most – teachers!

Over the next few years, I’d like to hear of multiple projects that actively test out different ways of teachers working with researchers. Then we can learn from one another by highlighting the benefits and limitations that are experienced and move forwards from there.

To support this, we also need forums in which to share our experiences – websites and research conferences that have an ear for the teacher’s perspective and an accessible, co-working approach would help here – the recent EarliSig22 conference was a good example, so let’s have more!

If you could share one piece of advice about research-informed practice with teachers and trainee teachers, what would it be? 

I was recently at a talk given by Adele Diamond who highlighted that the most important quality of early childhood education is the caring relationship between the teacher and the children (e.g. this paper by Melhuish). This has been shown to completely override many aspects of early life adversity and holds true for both teaching and parenting (see this paper by Asok et al). It’s not always easy but I try to keep my heart in the core of my work.

Jo Evershed is taking psychology research online

Posted on by
Reply

In yesterday’s CEN seminar, Jo Evershed, Founder and CEO of Cauldron talked about Gorilla, the company’s tool for building behavioural experiments. The tool allows researchers to create all kinds of computer based assessments which can then be used either in the lab, or remotely online, where there is the potential to reach larger and more diverse groups as well as those for whom lab testing is not feasible.

You can find out much more about how it works by having a look at some of these researchers’ stories or by taking a tour around the Gorilla website.

 

Prof Chloe Marshall on preschoolers and play

Posted on by
Reply

In yesterday’s CEN seminar, Prof Chloë Marshall, from UCL’s Institute of Education, presented a paper from Developmental Science by Taggart, Heise & Lillard entitled, “The real thing: preschoolers prefer actual activities to pretend ones”

You can read the paper on Angeline Lillard’s website here.

Professor Marshall writes:

“Play is a contested activity in preschool education. While its importance for children’s cognitive, social and emotional development is widely accepted by developmental psychologists and educationalists, the formalisation of preschool education in many countries means that children have fewer opportunities to play. In the Montessori classroom, there is little of one particular type of play – pretend play – and instead the focus is on providing children with opportunities for learning how to carry out real activities. In the Montessori classroom, for example, children prepare real food for snacktime, and wash real clothes and peg them up to dry, rather than engaging in pretend play in the “home corner” that characterises more mainstream preschools. Aside from the question of whether such real activities are more developmentally appropriate than pretend ones, is there any evidence (other than Montessori’s own observations) that children actually prefer them?

The first piece of evidence that I’m aware of is provided by the paper that I present in this talk. Angeline Lillard – an eminent Montessorian – and her colleagues examined, for nine different activities, American middle-class preschoolers’ preferences for pretend and real versions of these activities. The 100 children that they tested overwhelmingly preferred real activities to pretend ones, and this preference increased from age 3 to age 4, then remained steady through age 6. Children were able to provide cogent justifications for their preferences.”

Following the seminar there was a vibrant discussion of the paper. Some important questions were raised about the experimental design, about whether children would in practice make the choices they made verbally, the role of the imagination in children’s play and much more.

Do join us next time! Seminars are weekly, Thursdays 4-5pm in Room 534 of Birbeck’s Psychology department and are open to all.

Teachers share their thoughts on educational neuroscience

Posted on by
Reply

niki-kaiser-twitterWe are delighted to welcome Dr Niki Kaiser, Network Research Lead at Norwich Research School, to our blog series in which teachers involved in research give us their take on educational neuroscience.

What does educational neuroscience mean to you?

Neuroscience helps me to link the ‘art’ of teaching to the science behind approaches that help me be a more effective teacher. Neuroscience is the science behind the ‘natural flair’ that great teachers appear to have, and it helps explains the mechanisms that help make learning more memorable.

It isn’t enough for me simply to be told how to apply approaches because “they’re evidence-based”, however strong that research base might be. I believe it’s just as important to understand why approaches are effective. By understanding why approaches work, I can hone my teaching of each topic within specific contexts.

For example, unless you understand why retrieval practice is effective, you might believe that it’s simply about asking students a few questions here and there. “Low-stakes quizzing: tick! I’ve now “done retrieval practice”! But knowledge of why retrieval practice works means I realise that it’s not just the questions or the quizzes themselves that are important, but rather the process of bringing information to mind. For example, for long-term retention, it appears to be more effective to retrieve information 70% correctly than to re-read 100% correct information (Smith et al., 2013). Understanding this can inform how and when (and why) you embed retrieval practice on a day-to-day basis.

This understanding of why approaches are effective is where neuroscience comes into the equation, for me. Neuroscience helps us to understand how and why empirically-based approaches, grouped under an umbrella of the Science of Learning, are effective. And also how they might be developed further.

How do you keep up to date with the latest research?

Our school is an EEF research school. We receive regular news and updates via the Research School Network at meetings, via email, and through conversations with colleagues.

Networks are important to me (see my article on this), and last year, I helped to form a group called #CogSciSci, an online peer-support network with over 500 teachers, who regularly share ideas and questions about applying The Science of Learning to science teaching. The teachers on this forum are an amazing and generous bunch, who constantly keep me on my toes as they point out things they’ve read, ask pertinent questions, and discuss key research.

I can access research articles via my membership of the Chartered College of Teaching, and their recent edition of Impact on the Science of Learning was excellent.

I also spend rather a lot of time of Twitter (!), and find myself regularly disappearing down rabbit holes, as I follow up links and leads to interesting research. Signing up to email lists is another way to keep abreast of what’s out there. I receive regular updates from the Education Endowment Foundation and the Institute for Effective Education.

Can you give some examples of how neuroscience understanding has helped you and your school?

An understanding of what we mean by learning, and how this links to the model of memory, has really helped shape my approach to planning and teaching. I now consider the limitations of working memory at all points, so I can better support long-term learning and retention.

I understand the benefits of spaced review and retrieval practice, and of encouraging my students to develop automaticity, thus freeing up their working memory to process the more interesting, higher-level thinking needed in science.

One of my rules of thumb when introducing new approaches is that it shouldn’t take me too far away from “business as usual”. And it shouldn’t increase my workload. So I embed research-informed ideas by tweaking what I do, rather than totally re-working everything.

However, this demands a deeper understanding of the underlying research, so I particularly enjoyed the review by Weinstein 2018 as a very readable overview, and a gateway to further reading. It picks apart the “6 strategies for effective learning”  from the Learning Scientists website and goes into depth about exactly what the research behind them does (and doesn’t) say. For example, they ask whether spaced practice can ever be effective enough to completely alleviate the need or utility of a cramming period, which is just the kind of question teachers ask themselves.  And I like Karpicke, 2008, because the results are so striking. When you compare the re-test and re-study groups, and see how much more effective it was to re-test, it really hammers the point home that it is worth doing (despite students actually feeling less confident at the time, compared to the re-study group). This was explained particularly effectively by Efrat Furst who spoke at one of our Research School meetings last year.

I do quiz students at the start of each lesson, which is a low-maintenance approach to retrieval practice, but I’m also careful to introduce as many opportunities as possible for students to think hard and work to bring information to mind. I also plan in spaced review opportunities via my normal class and homework activities, rather than reworking the entire curriculum.

How do you get teachers and students involved?

We are a Research School, and we share ideas via our newsletter and website. But we are very much of the mindset that “schools listen to schools and teachers listen to teachers”, so we are working hard to build a network of research-informed teachers in and around Norwich. We meet half-termly to share ideas and hear from others, and at a recent meeting, Dr Flavia Belham presented ideas around memory and learning.

Within school, all staff meet in groups to discuss research and how to apply it, as part of our whole-school CPD system. We also have a school Journal Club, and various initiatives, such as a Research Bulletin summarising research and case studies of how it’s been applied in school.

I have used Dunlosky’s toolkit to help encourage students to study more effectively, and this has helped them to move away from simply reading through their books and making beautiful notes towards more impactful study approaches. But I am careful to explain to them how and why certain strategies are more worthwhile than others, even though they might feel harder at the time. An understanding of the research helps me to sell these “desirably difficult” study approaches to them.

Teachers share their thoughts about research

Posted on by
Reply

jawfTime for the next exciting conversation in our teacher-chat blog series! Introducing Jack White-Foy who is a biology teacher in key stage 4 and 5.

This year, his school has launched a student-led research group in Educational Neuroscience. They have two Emotiv Insight EEG headsets and will be carrying out a range of research projects in the classroom and in the laboratory. Any teachers and researchers who would like to get involved, please email neurolab@dulwich.org.uk

Jack, thank you for taking the time to answer our questions. Firstly, how do you keep up-to-date with the latest education research?

My primary source is from other teachers. We have a dedicated Staff Tutor who shares articles, research papers and ideas either through email or through short teacher meetings after school. My link with Birkbeck and UCL through the MSc Educational Neuroscience course has also given me access to journals, specific authors and conferences (e.g. The CEN and FutureEd) that prove very useful. The latter are particularly useful to me because they are more tailored to my specialism.

Is it important to you whether the research uses particular methods (eg neuroscience, classroom-based)?

Knowing and understanding the methods used by researchers is key when judging the validity, reliability and generalisability of any findings. For me, there is a hierarchy of research methods in education that will influence how confident I can be that the findings might apply to my own students. Anecdotal evidence is still informative and interesting, yet provides little support to generalise beyond the sample. If the methods used by researchers are not disclosed, it is very difficult to evaluate the findings and any conclusions.

Could you tell us how research has influenced your teaching?

Throughout my PGCE and NQT years, I listened carefully to my teacher mentors. Their advice was invaluable in developing skills in lesson planning, behaviour management, and assessment. Trial and error still plays a big part because each class and each student are different and respond more positively to some methods over others. Research is the driving force for change and guided experimentation. Innovation and intuition are part and parcel of the skill of being a professional teacher and research gives one confidence in trying out new methods. Time is one of the most limiting factors in teacher development, so I am always looking for reliable ways of improving student learning whilst reducing teacher workload. Research in motivation, attention, inhibitory control, memory and risk-taking have all influenced how I structure lessons, plan group work, design schemes of work and promote independence. Without research into these areas, I would be flying blind and relying on luck. The futures of my students should not depend on chance.

What do you think researchers should focus on next (i.e. what are the gaps in our understanding, from a teacher’s perspective?)?

One of the major gaps in rigorous research is the impact of marking compared to the time invested by teachers. There are as many marking polices as there are departments in some schools, with very different demands put on teachers. New policies are frequently put into place with various assumptions given to justify them. To date, there is no reliable and objective method for measuring the impact of marking. Any activity that can add several hours to a teacher’s working day should only be compulsory if it has a distinct benefit to students over other things a teacher could be doing (e.g. plan more engaging lessons, invest time into extra-curricular activities, reduce stress, explore professional development opportunities).

The second area that I think is important to mention is that of misconceptions. During my master’s degree with Birkbeck and UCL, I helped work on a project that wanted to understand more about why some students can overcome science misconceptions relatively easily, whilst others struggle. Conceptual change is, for me, one of the biggest obstacles to understanding science and enjoying it. Doors to a career in medicine, engineering, research and others could be opened to many more students if they were better able to grasp the more challenging aspects of the sciences. Giving students choice is arguably a worthwhile endeavour.

Do you have any suggestions of how communication and collaboration could be improved between teachers and education researchers?  

Teachers are not always confident when it comes to interpreting research. In Educational Neuroscience, for example, the links between a study’s findings and applications in the classroom are not always obvious, so this is more demanding even for an experienced researcher. The trust I have in the field comes from a deep-seated confidence that all of our behaviour, learning and memory, motivation and passion resides in the 1.4kg mass of neurones in our brain. This draws me to developments in neuroscience and keeps me looking for ways to apply it to my teaching. Education researchers need to recognise that their audience is open to ideas, with limited time to decipher them. Similarly, teachers need to familiarise themselves with research methods, so they can meet researchers half way. Teacher training has, for a long time, included some aspects of research into their programmes of study. This needs to be more explicit with trainee teachers being given much more support and opportunity to get involved with projects that follow the scientific method. There has been a growing interest, from my perspective, in action research (research carried out by teachers). However, this can fall short of meeting the standard to be considered publishable research. Teachers are often unable to exclude confounding factors, and the research may be affected by reverse inferencing, confirmation bias, and the observer effect. There is a hunger for collaboration between teachers and researchers. It just needs more guidance.

Please could you describe a research-informed idea that you feel has had a positive impact in your classroom, so that others could try it as well if they feel it’s relevant. (e.g. Why did you introduce the idea? What did you do? What impact has it had?)

I had the privilege to hear Sarah-Jayne Blakemore speak at the FutureEd conference in February. I was particularly grabbed by the social influence on risk-taking behaviour in adolescents and how this might apply to positive risk-taking in the classroom. According to the idea, adolescents are influenced more by people of a similar age and those they consider to be popular. In each of my classes, I have tried to identify which students are the more confident as well as those viewed favourably by others. When we tackle a particularly challenging topic, where no one wants to volunteer an answer, I will look to the identified ‘leader’ to hazard a guess. What I have experienced is this tends to result in more students volunteering for subsequent questions and especially if the ‘leader’ gets the question wrong. Whilst entirely subjective so far, my feeling is that the more each student tries to answer a question, the more invested they will be at discovering the correct answer. I am hoping to turn this into a more empirical study later in the year.

Thank you!

Genes, Environment and Academic Achievement

Posted on by
Reply

CEN research group member, Dr Emma Meaburn, was recently interviewed by our friends at TILE in Dundee who share our passion for an interdisciplinary approach to improving evidence-based education. You can find out more about TILE here https://learningspaces.dundee.ac.uk/tile or follow them on twitter @TILEnetwork. And you can find out more about Emma’s work by following her on twitter @emma_meaburn.

In her interview, Emma talks about her research into the role that genes play in educational attainment and the implications for teachers.

Can you briefly introduce yourself? So, a little bit about me and my research interests. We all differ in interesting ways, and since childhood I’ve been intrigued by the origins of these differences – what factors shape who we become? This question spurred my interest in genetics and psychology during my undergraduate studies and I went on to a PhD in Behavior Genetics at King’s College London. I joined Birkbeck as a faculty member of the Centre for Brain and Cognitive Development in 2010, where the majority of my research is centered on understanding the genetic (DNA sequence) contributions to individual differences in educationally relevant outcomes, and how genetic effects are moderated and mediated by the environment.

A robust finding to emerge from twin and family studies is that DNA differences contribute (in part) to variation in cognitive traits and academic outcomes, and rapid progress has been made in identifying specific DNA variants. However, despite these advances, there remains a gap in our ability to understand the mechanisms by which variations in the DNA sequence influence brain development and so result in behavioural and cognitive differences between people. This is partly because genetic effects are context dependent – and mapping causal paths between genes, brain and behaviour will need to factor in non-genetic (i.e. environmental) information as well. This is not straightforward, but is an area I am increasingly focused on, because understanding the relationship between genes and environment in a developmental context is critical for translating research to the classroom.

How can research into our DNA help us understand individual differences in academic achievement?

I’m a behavior geneticist, and – generally speaking – I use statistical and molecular genetic approaches to measure the contribution of genetic variation (the differences in DNA sequence that exist between individuals in a population) to individual differences in behavior. Typically, this requires measuring DNA directly using genomic technologies in very large samples of people, and correlating genetic variation to behavioural variation.

DNA-based approaches such as the ones I use can help us in several ways. They tell us about the origins of variation — that students differ, and this is not entirely for environmental reasons. They are also able to index the extent of genetic overlap between traits related to education and educational success. For example, individual differences in education are correlated with a great many social, behavioral and cognitive factors, and DNA-based research has robustly shown that this is in part due to shared biology. Most importantly, they can shed light on mechanisms. Identifying specific DNA sequence variants associated with individual differences in education is the first step required for understanding the biological basis of learning.

In principle, you are a scientist exploring the interface between nature and nurture. Can knowing about the contributions of nature to individual differences in abilities inform optimal nurture, e.g. learning and teaching environment?

This is a very interesting question, and the answer to this will depend on how ‘optimal’ nurture is conceptualized, and what we want from our educational system. For example, do we want to maximize every student’s educational potential, do we want to narrow the gaps in achievement between students, or do we want to focus resources on identifying those students most likely to struggle so that we can intervene early? These kinds of questions are thoughtfully tackled in Kathryn Asbury’s book ‘G is for Genes’. Ultimately the answers to this will depend on the values of society and are not for scientists alone to decide.

Right now, the main message is that students differ and some of these differences are due to genetic effects. Whether we measure years spent in education, personality traits, general intelligence or high-stakes exam outcomes, a consistent finding to emerge is that a notable proportion of the differences we see between students can be attributed to genetic differences that exist between them. The question then, is how might this information be useful to teachers? Perhaps it will inform how we think about differences between children, and how we can cater to individual interests and aptitudes in the classroom.

Somewhat counterintuitively, greater genetic influence is observed in enriched educational and social environments. This is because the variation in environmental experience is minimised (for example, every student has access to books, technology, medical care etc) so the differences that remain between students are more readily explained by their genetic differences. Perhaps in the future genetic studies might be a useful index of educational equality.

Most recently the field has incorporated comprehensive molecular genetic strategies to move from explaining the sources of variance (‘it’s in the genes’) to identifying specific causes (what genes, where and how?).  As mentioned, identification of specific DNA sequences associated with educational traits will allow us to build explanatory models of how genetic variation influences cognitive development and learning. A key discovery here is that educational achievement is influenced by the combined action of many thousands of genetic variants; each DNA sequence variant alone explains only a fraction of the differences seen between individuals. This means we are still a long way off from understanding the biological mechanisms of how we process information, but critically I think this is the type of knowledge that is required if we want to gain insights into why certain educational practices work, how they might be improved, or the optimal timing and format of educational input.

Finally, there is great interest in using an individual’s genetic profile to predict their academic strengths and weaknesses. This approach (called polygenic scoring or polygenic risk scores) combines the effects of all measured genetic variation for an individual to predict academic outcomes – much in the same way we do for environmental predictor variables such as socioeconomic status and level of parental education.  Polygenic scores can be used in a variety of ways, but a potential application is to use them to identify individuals ‘at risk’ early in development and target them for early interventions or screening before problems take hold. Currently, the application of polygenic prediction approaches outside of academic research is still a hypothetical, and in the interim, there are important ethical discussions to be had around ownership and use of an individual’s genetic information in this context.

What is your take home message?

In summary, we know that both nature (genes) and nurture (environment) explain the differences that we see between students in the classroom. However, we cannot view genetic and environmental factors as separate and independent; both are important, and a key challenge lies in understanding how specific genes act and interact with environmental experiences over the course of development to shape learning and educational fulfilment.

Senior leaders share their thoughts on educational neuroscience

Posted on by
Reply

shaun-allison-photo-smallerWe are delighted to introduce Shaun Allison, Director of Durrington Research School and Head of School Improvement of Durrington Multiple AcademyTrust.

His book, co-authored with Andy Tharby ‘Making every lesson count‘ outlines six key principles to support teaching and learning and you can also follow Shaun on Twitter @shaun_allison. We are very pleased to welcome him to our blog.

What does educational neuroscience mean to you?

As teachers we are in the business of helping students to learn, which requires a change in their long term memory.  With this in mind it seems strange that as a profession in recent years we haven’t really embraced the fields of neuroscience and cognitive psychology to inform our practice.  As a biologist and a teacher, it seems really important to me that if we are trying to facilitate learning, which happens in the brain, we should really try to use the evidence about how this works to inform what we do?  Fortunately, the tide seems to be turning and there seems to be a gathering of momentum towards this research-informed approach to teaching.  Which is great news.

The challenge for teachers and leaders up and down the country, is taking these findings from research, which can sometimes be very lengthy and complex, and turning them into actionable strategies for busy teachers.  This is what the work of the Research School Network is focusing on.

How do you keep up to date with the latest research?

In a variety of ways:

  • Twitter is fantastic for this. There are a growing number of researchers and teachers on twitter who are very generous and share their thoughts on research and how to implement it in the classroom.
  • Similarly, there are a huge number of researchers and teachers blogging about this. There are some great examples of this here.
  • The EEF Teaching and Learning toolkit is a great starting point to find a summary of thousands of research papers, as are their guidance reports.
  • Similarly the ‘Institute for Effective Education’ publish a fantastic fortnightly digest of the most recent research – Best Evidence in Brief.
  • The ‘Research Schools Network’ are doing a fabulous job of helping teachers to implement the latest evidence from research in their classrooms, through training programmes, twilights, newsletters and their website.
  • Conferences such as those organised by ‘researchED’ are a brilliant way to hear from teachers and researchers and are held up and down the country.

Can you give some examples of how neuroscience understanding has helped you and your school?

It has added a clarity to how I teach and how I lead teaching and learning across the school.  As a result, we disregard many of the myths and gimmicks that have permeated teaching in the last few decades and focus our attention on approaches to teaching that have a strong evidence base.  For example, the importance of dual coding, elaborative interrogation, cognitive load theory and desirable difficulties at the explanation and modelling phase of teaching have all influenced our work.  Likewise, we understand the importance of retrieval practice and spaced practice, in terms of supporting long term memory retention.

About six years ago, when we first became interested in this, my colleague Andy Tharby and I used this body of evidence from research to come up with six pedagogical principles that we wanted all of our teachers to focus on, to support an evidence informed approach to teaching across the school:

  • Challenge so that students have to think deeply and have high expectations of what they can achieve.
  • Explanation so that they acquire new knowledge.
  • Modelling so that students know how to apply their knowledge (including explicit modelling of metacognitive strategies and the thinking processes of adults).
  • Questioning so that students are made to think hard with breadth, depth and accuracy.
  • Feedback so that students further develop their knowledge.
  • Purposeful practice so that students think deeply and eventually achieve fluency.

You can read about this approach in our book ‘Making every lesson count’.

We spend a lot of time discussing these ideas as a team of teachers, and most importantly, how these ideas can be mobilised on a day to day basis.

How do you get teachers and students involved?

We use INSET days to share these ideas with the whole staff, but then department teams meet every fortnight and are expected to discuss how they will use these ideas to inform their teaching. In a large secondary school, it is essential that subject specialists are given the opportunity to contextualise these ideas in their subject.

We hold half termly ‘journal clubs’ for our teachers, where they meet informally to discuss a particular research paper. We write and share regular articles on our school teaching and learning blog and our Research School blog about how teachers are using this evidence in their classrooms.  As a research school we lead a range of training programmes and twilights to support teachers and leaders with mobilising this research. We send out a monthly newsletter to keep teachers informed about the most recent research.

We also use assemblies and parental workshops to share these findings from cognitive science with students and parents/carers – in a way that is manageable for them e.g. supporting retrieval practice by using flashcards.  This is then supported throughout the school year by various strategies e.g. a  half termly memory challenge for all Y7 and then guided workshops and resources  on how to revise effectively for Y10 and Y11.

Are there areas where you think research should focus next?

There is a huge body of evidence that exists around cognitive science e.g. we know that retrieval practice, spaced practice and dual coding are really important when it comes to learning.  The focus now needs to turn to codifying these ideas into practical approaches that teachers can adopt on a day to day basis in their classroom, that are then rigorously evaluated and shared. This body of research research evidence will only be of any use if it is mobilised in classrooms.

The direction of travel towards a more evidence-informed approach to teaching, is great for the profession and the young people we teach.  Whilst research evidence can’t give us all the answers, it can tell us the ‘best bets’ in terms of the approaches to adopt, that are most likely to improve the learning of our young people.  I think we have a moral duty to be doing this.  The education of the next generation is too important to be left to chance.

 

Teachers share their thoughts about research

Posted on by
Reply

daria-picNext in our series of interviews with teachers, we are delighted to welcome Daria Makarova. Daria is Head of Science, and is a passionate proponent of evidence-based practice and applying current research in schools.

Thank you Daria for taking the time to answer our questions. Firstly, how do you keep up-to-date with the latest education research?

I read TES and Impact and am also subscribed to BPS digest weekly newsletter which has clear summaries of psychological research (which can often be applied to education).

I also develop contacts with other teacher-researchers via the Teacher-Led Randomised Control Trials project, and through being a member of various groups on Facebook, such as the EEF and teachers networks where articles and research are commonly shared. ResearchEd is great for sharing relevant research and for talking to people ‘in person’.

I use google scholar to read latest articles on specific interventions relevant to my practice.

Is it important to you whether the research uses particular methods (eg neuroscience, classroom-based)?

I am particularly interested in quantitative research; specifically well-controlled studies across a range of schools. Classroom-based studies are most relevant as they relate directly to my practice. Lab-based studies give insight but would require replication in the classroom for me to be convinced!

Could you tell us how research has influenced your teaching?

I have based my own teaching practices on research on retrieval practice (e.g. including regular quizzes/ practice testing), feedback (peer versus teacher) and motivation (e.g. applying Dweck’s mindset theory to the classroom).

Having a research background has also meant that I have questioned and examined the evidence-base for interventions which have been frequently introduced in the schools I have worked in.

How do you tell if something is working in the classroom?

Data from students – regarding performance in tests across time.
Feedback from students regarding their personal experience of the intervention.

What do you think researchers should focus on next (ie what are the gaps in our understanding, from a teacher’s perspective?)?

Motivation changes between the ages of 11 and 18 – what are the largest influences on these changes? What can be done to maintain motivation?

The impact of the new curriculum on education and outcomes.

Comparing different methods of schooling & school structures e.g. are there any other school structures that may give better outcomes and opportunities for students – more personalised routes that give rise to qualified professionals in vocational fields etc.

Do you have any suggestions of how communication and collaboration could be improved between teachers and education researchers?

A clear website (e.g. like TES) and e-newsletter for teachers where research in education is succinctly and clearly summarised (quick to read with a clear conclusion – if it is emailed, teachers are more likely to read it).

Teacher and researcher conferences which are funded (such that teachers can be released from schools to attend).

Specific roles for ‘teacher-researchers’ in schools / establishing more ‘research schools’.

High quality research methods training on PGCE courses.

If you could share one piece of advice about incorporating research into your practice with other teachers and trainee teachers, what would it be?

Read research, evaluate it and trial it in the classroom if it applies! Base your practice on evidence!

Please could you describe a research-informed idea that you feel has had a positive impact in your classroom, so that others could try it as well if they feel it’s relevant. (e.g. Why did you introduce the idea? What did you do? What impact has it had?)

I found research on peer-feedback at university very useful and decided to apply it to my practice with A-level. I carried out a RCT (randomised control trial) at A-level examining peer versus teacher feedback on psychology essays. The results showed no difference in progress following teacher versus peer feedback. I have therefore introduced structured peer feedback sessions prior to taking in the final pieces of work which has worked very well, and has helped to reduce my marking load.

Thanks very much for your time!