How Useful Is Cognitive Science In The Classroom?

J Wainman - Chartered College of Teaching 2024 What is Cognitive Science?

Cognitive science research outlines the mechanisms involved in learning and memory (Education Endowment Foundation 2021). Over recent years, there has been a widespread enthusiasm for cognitive science to be applied to the classroom, with schools and teachers aiming to translate research into practice (Foster et al. 2024). Cognitive science research is famous for its highly controlled laboratory nature of investigation, leading to advances in our understanding of classroom practice (Barrett 2020). The most noteworthy findings into cognitive science have been relating to methods such as: retrieval practice, spaced learning, interleaving, dual coding and strategies to overcome cognitive load (Education Endowment Foundation 2021). Despite this increase in popularity, academics are questioning the effectiveness of practical application of cognitive science in the classroom (Scutt 2020; Foster et al. 2024).

To address this question, the benefits of cognitive science interventions in the classroom will be discussed alongside the notable limitations of applying such interventions in everyday classroom practice. For word count purposes, this discussion will focus on retrieval and spaced practice, interleaving and dual coding. Throughout this discussion, my own context of Psychology A-level teaching will be referred to in aiming to highlight the usefulness of cognitive science in the classroom.

Retrieval Practice and Spaced Retrieval

Retrieval practice, particularly utilising a spaced approach, is something that is well embedded within my classroom and usually takes the form of free recall or questions that span different areas of the course. Both retrieval practice and spaced retrieval has been found to be beneficial to students’ long-term memory retention of lesson material, primarily due to the ‘testing effect’ that is being exploited (Moreira et al. 2019; Agarwal 2019). Evidence suggests that recalling information first from long-term memory has huge benefits for long-term retention of information in comparison to techniques such as re-reading (Karpicke et al. 2016; Agarwal 2019). Alongside the benefits of retrieval practice for long-term learning, retrieval practice is a versatile method in both delivery and educational context, being utilised in a wide range of formats and delivered to varied student populations (Karpicke et al. 2016; Weinstein 2018). Despite the clear benefits of retrieval practice, research has shown that students might be misled by metacognition biases and illusions during the learning process, leading to retrieval practice being underused in student populations (Finn & Tauber 2015). For example, students might make inaccurate judgements on what material they have accurately retained and therefore do not see the benefits of using retrieval practice as a revision method (Finn & Tauber 2015; Cervin-Ellqvist et al. 2021). Researchers have put forward various metacognitive biases to explain the underuse of retrieval practice, such as student’s overconfidence during the learning process or their susceptibility to processing fluency, whereby students believe they have learnt something more effectively if it was processed with ease (Finn & Tauber 2015; Carpenter et al. 2020; Cervin-Ellqvist et al. 2021). However, other researchers argue that retrieval practice may be underused due to students’ judgements on effective revision strategies, such as preferring to conduct re-reading rather than retrieval practice (Tai et al. 2018; Cervin-Ellqvist et al. 2021). It is also worthy to note that the limitations mentioned above concern only cognitive effectiveness and do not encompass a self-regulated learning approach, taking into account differing educational contexts and individual differences in student populations (Vermunt 2005; Cervin-Ellqvist et al. 2021).

Interleaving

More recently, a focus in cognitive science research has been on the effects of interleaving, whereby students practice problems in a mixed order in comparison to ‘blocking’ their learning into separate topics (Sana & Yan 2022).  The research into interleaving has presented promising findings, with long-term memory retention being improved because of the juxtaposed nature of concepts, allowing for discriminatory features of concepts being more easily identified by learners (Firth et al. 2021; Sana & Yan 2022). Research has indicated similar versatility as retrieval practice, with Firth et al. (2021) finding that art and science-based concepts were found to have the similar impact on retention, Hartwig et al. (2022) further extends this claim to topics in mathematics. Despite these positive findings, I have not implemented this into my teaching context, perhaps due to significant limitations of interleaving that have been noted in literature (Sana & Yan 2022). For instance, the research mentioned above have all noted the need for interleaving effects to be investigated in classroom environments as most of the research has utilised laboratory conditions and undergraduate student populations (Firth et al. 2021; Hartwig et al. 2022; Sana & Yan 2022). Furthermore, like the issues raised with retrieval and spaced practice, interleaving has also been subject to metacognitive biases by students, with underappreciation of the effects of interleaving being shown (Hartwig et al. 2022). There have been several studies that have indicated that students rate interleaving as lower in effectiveness compared to blocked practice, despite their test scores presenting the contrary (Yan et al. 2016; Hartwig et al. 2022). Fortunately, in contrast, teacher surveys have indicated that teachers believe that interleaving is not only superior to blocking, but also easy to implement into the curriculum (Rohrer et al. 2020). However, despite this positive finding, research has also presented significant difficulties in embedding interleaving into the curriculum (Rohrer et al. 2020; Grant 2023). Resource creation and teacher stress have been identified as two main practical barriers for interleaving becoming a routine in classroom practice (Rohrer et al. 2020; Grant 2023).

Dual Coding

Dual coding (or Dual Coding Theory – DCT) involves presenting both visual and verbal information to learners simultaneously to aid learning and recall (Paivio 1991; Cuevas 2016). This is something that again is embedded within my context, with students consistently being presented with multi-media to aid retention. Research has shown that when visual representations of material are shown to students alongside verbal items substantial increases in accurate recall are shown (Sharps & Price 1992; Cuevas 2016). To further support this, evidence has shown improvements in writing, reading and mathematics skills in students when teachers used dual coding mechanisms (Clark & Campbell 1991; Paivo & Clark 2006). Despite the suggested evidence that DCT has been effective in improving recall, there have been criticisms put forward about the lack of appreciation for emotional processing that might be involved in learning (Kousta et al. 2011; Almgren 2018). For instance, DCT does not account for how abstract words are found to be processed slower when they are negative in nature in comparison to neutral abstract words (Almgren 2018). Furthermore, a review conducted by Evans & Stanovich (2013) noted some significant limitations of DCT such as researchers offering vague and multiple definitions of dual coding and that evidence supporting DCT is unconvincing (Keren & Schul 2009; Evans & Stanovich 2013). Despite this counter evidence in research, Evans and Stanovich (2013) take the stance that these criticisms are somewhat overstated and that DCT is still a reputable theory within cognitive science and does have positive implications for classroom practice.

Conclusion

The above-mentioned interventions in the classroom, underpinned by cognitive science, have clear benefits for academic outcomes for students, with retrieval and spaced practice, interleaving and dual coding all having evidence to support this claim (Cuevas 2016; Moreira et al. 2019; Agarwal 2019; Firth et al. 2021; Sana & Yan 2022). However, it is also evident that these interventions have clear limitations that require attention, for instance both retrieval practice and interleaving present difficulties for student access, due to the susceptibility for student metacognitive biases (Finn & Tauber 2015; Hartwig et al. 2022). In addition, interleaving presents a unique limitation in that teachers may not implement interleaving due to stress and resource creation barriers (Hartwig et al. 2022). Furthermore, DCT has been widely discussed and contradicted within research, a discussion that appears to be ongoing about its theoretical nature (Evans & Stanovich 2013). These principles discussed also share a common limitation of generalisability flaws, due to most studies in cognitive science utilising laboratory settings and western educated industrialised rich democratic countries (WEIRD) within its methodology (Ekuni et al. 2023). Researchers such as Ekuni et al. (2023) have called for more research to be conducted with diverse non-WEIRD students.

References:

1.     Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) (2021) Cognitive science approaches in the classroom: A review of the evidence. Available at: https://d2tic4wvo1iusb.cloudfront.net/production/documents/guidance/Cognitive_science_approaches_in_the_classroom_-_A_review_of_the_evidence.pdf?v=1689227067 (accessed 30 August 2023).

2.     Foster, C., Woollacott, B., Francome, T., Shore, C., Peters, C. and Morley, H., 2024. Challenges in applying principles from cognitive science to the design of a school mathematics curriculum. The Curriculum Journal.

3.     Scutt C (2020) How much do teachers really need to know about the science of learning? Schools Week 20 January 2020 (online) Available at: https://schoolsweek.co.uk/how-much-do-teachers-really-need-to-know-about-the-science-of-learning/ (accessed 7 January 2021).

4.     Moreira, B.F.T., Pinto, T.S.S., Starling, D.S.V. and Jaeger, A., 2019, February. Retrieval practice in classroom settings: a review of applied research. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 4, p. 5). Frontiers.

5.     Agarwal, P.K., 2019. Retrieval practice & Bloom’s taxonomy: Do students need fact knowledge before higher order learning?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(2), p.189.

6.     Karpicke, J.D., Blunt, J.R. and Smith, M.A., 2016. Retrieval-based learning: Positive effects of retrieval practice in elementary school children. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, p.350.

7.     Sana, F. and Yan, V.X., 2022. Interleaving retrieval practice promotes science learning. Psychological Science, 33(5), pp.782-788.

8.     Firth, J., Rivers, I. and Boyle, J., 2021. A systematic review of interleaving as a concept learning strategy. Review of Education, 9(2), pp.642-684.

9.     Hartwig, M.K., Rohrer, D. and Dedrick, R.F., 2022. Scheduling math practice: Students’ underappreciation of spacing and interleaving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 28(1), p.100.

10.  Yan, V. X., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2016). On the difficulty of mending metacognitive illusions: A priori theories, fluency effects, and misattributions of the interleaving benefit. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 918-933.

11.  Weinstein, Y., Madan, C.R. and Sumeracki, M.A., 2018. Teaching the science of learning. Cognitive research: principles and implications, 3(1), pp.1-17.

12.  Grant, A., 2023. Interleaved Practice: The role of habits in the implementation of a new technique.

13.  Rohrer, D., Dedrick, R. F., Hartwig, M. K., & Cheung, C.-N. (2020). A Randomized Controlled Trial of Interleaved Mathematics Practice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(1), 40-52. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000367

14.  Finn, B. and Tauber, S.K., 2015. When confidence is not a signal of knowing: How students’ experiences and beliefs about processing fluency can lead to miscalibrated confidence. Educational Psychology Review, 27, pp.567-586

15.  Weinstein, Y., Madan, C.R. and Sumeracki, M.A., 2018. Teaching the science of learning. Cognitive research: principles and implications, 3(1), pp.1-17.

16.  Carpenter, S.K., Witherby, A.E. and Tauber, S.K., 2020. On students’(mis) judgments of learning and teaching effectiveness. Journal of Applied research in Memory and cognition, 9(2), pp.137-151.

17.  Cervin-Ellqvist, M., Larsson, D., Adawi, T., Stöhr, C. and Negretti, R., 2021. Metacognitive illusion or self-regulated learning? Assessing engineering students’ learning strategies against the backdrop of recent advances in cognitive science. Higher Education, 82(3), pp.477-498.

18.  Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Boud, D., Dawson, P. and Panadero, E., 2018. Developing evaluative judgement: enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work. Higher education, 76, pp.467-481.

19.  Vermunt, J.D., 2005. Relations between student learning patterns and personal and contextual factors and academic performance. Higher education, 49, pp.205-234.

20.  Cuevas, J., 2016. An analysis of current evidence supporting two alternate learning models: Learning styles and dual coding. Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology, 6(1), pp.1-13.

21.  Sharps, M. J., & Price, J. L. (1992). Auditory imagery and free recall. The Journal of General Psychology, 119(1), 81-87.

22.  Paivio, A. and Clark, J.M., 2006. Dual coding theory and education. Pathways to literacy achievement for high poverty children, 1, pp.149-210.

23.  Clark, J. M., & Campbell, J. I. D. (1991). Integrated versus modular theories of number skills and acalculia. Brain and Cognition, 17, 204-239.

24.  Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory - Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology-Revue Canadienne de Psychologie, 45(3), 255-287.

25.  Almgren, I., 2018. Challenging the dual coding theory: Does Affective Information Play a Greater Role in Abstract Compared to Concrete Word Processing?.

26.  Kousta, S. T., Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., & Del Campo, E. (2011). The representation of abstract words: why emotion matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(1), 14-34.

27.  Evans, J.S.B. and Stanovich, K.E., 2013. Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on psychological science, 8(3), pp.223-241.

28.  Keren, G., & Schul, Y. (2009). Two is not always better than one: A critical evaluation of two-system theories. Perspectives on psychological science, 4, 533–550.

29.  Ekuni, R., Pompeia, S. and AGARWAL, P., 2023. Are study strategies universal? A call for more research with diverse non-WEIRD students. OVERSON, C.; HAKALA, C.; KORDONOWY, L, pp.316-327.