Increasingly, there are calls for education policy and practice to be guided by the best available research evidence. But how do we achieve this? The link between education research and classroom practice is not simple and can be the subject of passionate debate. What’s missing in much of this discussion is the role of learning theory.
A wide range of research from education, psychology and neuroscience can have implications for children’s learning in the classroom. This research takes different forms including quantitative and qualitative studies of behaviour or more formal trials of interventions.
What these research approaches have in common, and what links research and practice, is the role of theory. Different types of studies are ways to develop and test theories of learning. For example, observational studies can demonstrate that certain behaviours or skills are related to successful learning while intervention trials can provide evidence that particular pedagogical approaches lead to improved learning.
“Theories of learning that are relevant to teachers are specific hypotheses that explain why certain behaviours or skills are associated with successful learning.”
However, it’s not the specific findings of a study that are relevant for classroom practice; it’s the theory that explains the findings. The theory should be translated to the classroom, not the research study itself.
So, what is learning theory? At its simplest, a theory is an explanation that can predict future behaviours. We’re not talking here about the “grand theories” of cognition such as working memory or mental models. Theories of learning that are relevant to teachers are specific hypotheses that explain why certain behaviours or skills are associated with successful learning. Once these theories of learning have gained sufficient support from research studies, we can try to apply them to the classroom.
This approach also helps us to identify when research from different fields may have implications for education; if the specific theory being tested is relevant for the classroom then the research itself can be relevant, whether this is from education, psychology, neuroscience or beyond.
Example: What does the equal sign mean?
A nice example of the role of theory comes from the field of mathematical cognition, an area of research that aims to understand thinking skills related to mathematics. Many children fail to understand the true meaning of the equal sign. Rather than understanding that it means that both sides of the equation have the same value, many children and adolescents think the equals sign means “the answer to the problem” or “the total”. This incorrect operational conception of the equal sign can limit children’s achievement and cause particular problems when children move from arithmetic to algebra.
“Teachers might choose to vary the format of problems they give children.”
Why do so many children develop an operational conception of the equal sign? Nicole McNeil and colleagues proposed that this might be due to the way that the equal sign was commonly used. Across a series of lab and classroom-based studies they demonstrated that an over-reliance on operation = answer format problems (e.g. 3 + 4 = 7) can cause children to develop an operational view of the equal sign.
What does this set of studies mean for the classroom? It doesn’t mean that teachers need to copy exactly what the researchers did in their studies. But it does mean more broadly that the researchers’ theory was supported, and we can apply this theory to classroom activities. Consequently, teachers might choose to vary the format of problems they give children (e.g. “7 = 3 + 4” or “2 + 5 = 3 + 4”).
What does this mean for researchers and educators?
What are the implications of shifting the focus from research findings to learning theory? If theory is to bridge the gap between research and practice, we need to make sure that research is theory-driven.
In a recent review of interventions to support primary mathematics my colleagues and I identified that many published interventions are not based on a clearly articulated theory of learning. This limits what we can take from these studies and how far they can impact classroom practice. Researchers also need to be clear about the extent of support for a theory that their study provides.
Theories of learning that are appropriate to translate to the classroom will be supported by a body of research, not a single study. Researchers should resist the temptation to make speculative recommendations for classroom practice on the basis of single studies.
On the other hand, when there is solid evidence for a learning theory, researchers need to do a good job of communicating this theory to teachers at an appropriate level of detail (for example Daniel Willingham’s “empirical generalisations”). Teachers can then draw on their expertise, experience and understanding of their own context to identify the best way to apply these theories in their classroom.
“Theories of learning that are appropriate to translate to the classroom will be supported by a body of research, not a single study. Researchers should resist the temptation to make speculative recommendations for classroom practice on the basis of single studies.”
Footnotes
Co-author of this blog post: Victoria Simms
Misunderstanding the equals sign is not a good example to make your argument, because this issue, and the reasons for it, are well known in the professional knowledge of teachers and their advisors and it is also addressed explicitly in the guidance and testing for the national curriculum. It would be more helpful to point to issues that are not already known widely in the profession.
I’m encouraged that you think this issue is already well-known. When I’ve discussed this in INSET / PD sessions with teachers I’ve found that they are interested in the research and are unfamiliar with the importance of using varied problem types to help prevent children developing misconceptions around the meaning of the equals sign. Anecdotally, it’s still the case that arithmetic examples I see on primary classroom walls are typically all operation = answer formats. I’m happy if my experience is unusual though and this is well-known to teachers.
I have several points to raise regarding this blog. I respond from the perspective of an early years teacher who has worked in the area of early years mathematics learning and teaching for over 30 years.
You write: “observational studies can demonstrate that certain behaviours or skills are related to successful learning while intervention trials can provide evidence that particular pedagogical approaches lead to improved learning”. I have found that what translates as transferrable to classrooms is far more nuanced than this statement implies. Observational studies certainly can lead to evidence that certain pedagogical approaches can lead to enhanced learning. There are many examples of such in the field of early childhood learning.
Whilst I agree that it may be the theory that should be translated to the classroom, not the research study itself; without discussion with educationalists, any theory formed from outside the classroom is rendered fairly meaningless.
Rather than being a ‘grand theory of learning’, working memory is, as I am sure you are aware, a smaller part of central executive functioning and it is this that is useful for teachers to know about and study.
Your example of the lack of understanding of the equals sign is an example where cognitive science is not adding anything useful to classrooms and teachers, as this fact is well known (30 years plus).
You write about calls for education policy and practice to be guided by the best available research evidence and ask how to achieve this. One of the most effective ways forward is for a dialogue to begin between cognitive scientists, researchers and teachers. A to-ing and fro-ing of findings. An innovative and effective example of this is the recent publication from the Erikson Collaborative, “Growing Mathematical Minds”.
It seems we are sadly a long way behind this happening in the UK.
Thanks for your comments.
The distinction I drew between observational and intervention studies was one of study design (perhaps these weren’t the best terms to use). While observational (i.e. correlational) studies can provide evidence of factors that are associated with learning, only intervention (i.e. experimental) studies can provide evidence of causality. Ideally a theory will be supported by both correlational and causal evidence.
I agree that translation to the classroom is best achieved by researchers and educators working together. I think there is sometimes a temptation by researchers (and others) to make strong claims from a single study and to try to apply the study itself to the classroom. The point I was trying to make was that it’s the underlying theory (i.e. causal mechanism) that may translate, not the study itself. Some theories will be more or less applicable to the classroom and this may depend upon how specific and context-bound the proposed mechanism is. A theory that has a wealth of support from different contexts may be more effectively translated.
The example of working memory is interesting to consider. Amongst researchers there is much debate and disagreement about the nature of working memory, how it relates to other forms of cognitive control and the correct model of working memory. It’s unlikely to be helpful for teachers to get into the details of these debates. However, despite these disagreements there are reliable findings about the impacts of working memory on aspects of learning which may be helpful for teachers.
I agree that more dialogue is needed and the Erikson early math work is a good example of this. It would be fantastic to see more of this here. I’m encouraged by initiatives such as ResearchED which provide opportunities for this dialogue to take place.