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:
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.
The CEN has a new book out, written by CEN Director Michael Thomas and Simon Green, entitled ‘How the brain works: What psychology students need to know’. It provides an accessible overview of how the brain works useful to psychology students and to educators.
The book is published by Sage. For a 25% discount, use the code HTBW25 on the Sage website or on eBooks.com (valid until 31/12/24).
Michael says: “We wanted to write an accessible book on how the brain works. When psychology students or educators are introduced to the brain, the material often focuses on the Latin names for different structures, or how brain scanners work. As one student said to us, ‘I wanted to know why neurons communicate both electrically and chemically. I wanted to know why the left side of the brain controls the right side of the body. But whenever I asked these sorts of ‘why’ questions, the teacher kept saying, just learn it, it’s in the textbook’. Simon and I set out to write a book that gives an overall gist of how the brain works and why it works that way, which ultimately led us to placing the brain in its evolutionary context; and then showing how homo sapiens has subsequently stepped out of this context – in the main, through a cultural focus on education. The book shows how our minds have the peculiar properties they do because of how the brain works (including the way we learn); that the brain works the way it does because of biology; and that biology works the way it does because of evolution.”
Many people may struggle to develop strong mathematical abilities for many different reasons and thus mathematical difficulties are best thought of as a continuum (BDA, 2019). Dyscalculia falls on one end of that continuum and is a specific learning difficulty that affects a person’s ability to understand numerical information and perform mathematical operations (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).
Watch our explainer video
Here’s a video we produced as part of our NeuroSENse project
How is dyscalculia defined?
Although definitions may vary, individuals with dyscalculia may have difficulty with mental maths, trouble understanding mathematical concepts, difficulty with sequencing and organising information, and challenges with time and money management. These difficulties manifest during the early school years and must persist for at least 6 months to be diagnosed, according to DSM-V criteria. In addition, these learning difficulties cannot be attributed to intellectual disabilities, developmental disorders, or neurological or motor disorders. While dyscalculia is often diagnosed in childhood, it can also affect adolescents and adults.
How common is it?
Prevalence rates of dyscalculia have proven difficult to ascertain given that different inclusion criteria for dyscalculia are often used (Szűcs & Goswami, 2013). Based on a small number of previous studies, the prevalence of dyscalculia has been estimated to range between 1.3% and 10% of the population (Devine et al., 2013). This is equivalent to roughly 3 children in every class of 30 children, making it a relatively common condition that can affect people of all levels of intelligence.
How is dyscalculia diagnosed?
Dyscalculia can be diagnosed through a comprehensive evaluation by a qualified professional, and there are strategies and interventions that can help individuals with dyscalculia improve their mathematical skills and make progress.
Dyscalculia is not a neuromyth. The exact causes of dyscalculia are not yet fully understood, but researchers believe that there may be a combination of genetic, environmental, and brain-related factors that contribute to the condition (Van Herwegen, 2020). It is important to understand the facts about dyscalculia to provide appropriate support and accommodations for individuals who may have this condition.
Yet, there are several common misconceptions (neuromyths) about dyscalculia. Here are our top 5 myths!
Myths about dyscalculia
Neuromyth 1: If a person struggles with mathematics they have dyscalculia
This is not necessarily the case. Dyscalculia is a specific learning difficulty that affects an individual’s ability to understand and perform mathematical operations. This it is not the same as simply having difficulties with mathematics. A child may struggle with mathematics for a myriad of reasons, including lack of interest, poor teaching, or the curriculum being too delivered too quickly for their capacity. In addition, maths anxiety can be a contributing factor to difficulties with maths, but that doesn’t mean people with maths anxiety necessarily have dyscalculia (Devine et al., 2018). Most people with dyscalculia have specific mathematical difficulties such as understanding how numbers relate to each other (number sense), memorising and retrieving numerical facts as well as make counting errors.
Neuromyth 2: Individuals who are dyscalculic usually only have problems with numbers and can read and write at typical levels
Individuals with dyscalculia typically experience difficulties with their working memory and visuo-spatial skills (Kroesbergen et al., 2022). As such, dyscalculia impacts all areas of the curriculum, not just mathematics. In addition, up to 20-60% of those with dyscalculia also have other learning difficulties, such as, ADHD, dyslexia, and dyspraxia (Morsanyi et al., 2018; von Aster & Shalev, 2007), with co-occurrence of maths and reading difficulties as high as 70% (Moll et, al, 2019). This can mean individuals with dyscalculia also have problems with attention, reading and writing. It is thought that the overlap between dyscalculia and other learning difficulties is caused by shared difficulties with procedural learning (Evans & Ullman, 2016), the learning and control of skills and habits.
Neuromyth 3: Individuals with dyscalculia can be best helped by teaching them to remember number facts
Difficulties with number facts is only one aspect of dyscalculia. Although the actual cause of dyscalculia has not yet been established, many individuals with dyscalculia show difficulties with reasoning about quantities, and with a sense of what numbers represent (Butterworth, 2018). As such, they may need targeted interventions and support to succeed in academic and everyday life. Additionally, accommodations such as extra time for assessments, use of a calculator, or modifications to assignments can help students with dyscalculia succeed in the maths curriculum (Fuchs et al., 2008). While there are strategies and interventions that can help individuals with dyscalculia improve their maths skills, there is no cure for dyscalculia, which is a lifelong difficulty.
Neuromyth 4: It is often thought that individuals with dyscalculia are impaired across the entire maths curriculum
Indeed, most individuals with dyscalculia may struggle with basic arithmetic, number sense, and mathematical reasoning, which can impact their ability to learn and apply maths concepts across different areas of the curriculum. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some individuals with dyscalculia can be very good at geometry and algebra but there is scant evidence on the knowledge of geometry and algebra in individuals with dyscalculia. It is important to note that the severity and scope of dyscalculia can vary from person to person (see for example studies that have examined the existence of sub-groups within dyscalculia: Bartelet et al, 2014; Costa et al., 2018). While most people with dyscalculia struggle with many different mathematical concepts and procedures, some individuals with dyscalculia may have strengths in particular areas of maths and with good teaching and practice individuals with dyscalculia can make progress in maths, especially if targeted early intervention is provided.
Neuromyth 5: The dyscalculic brain is wired differently, which causes problems with maths but is often associated with strengths like creativity, strategic thinking, and intuitive thinking
There is currently no scientific evidence to support the claim that people with dyscalculia are more creative than those without dyscalculia. Dyscalculia is a learning difficulty that affects a person’s ability to understand and work with numbers. It does not necessarily affect a person’s creativity or artistic abilities. However, it is worth noting that people with dyscalculia may have developed compensatory strategies to deal with their difficulties in mathematics, which could enhance their creativity in other areas. For example, they may have developed stronger verbal and visual reasoning skills, or they may have developed a more intuitive approach to problem-solving. These compensatory strategies could potentially translate into enhanced creativity in certain domains. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that dyscalculia is a real and significant learning difficulty that can have a negative impact on a person’s academic and professional success. It is essential to provide appropriate support and accommodations for individuals with dyscalculia to help them overcome their challenges and reach their full potential, regardless of their creativity levels.
Here’s your take home
In sum, although the exact causes of dyscalculia are not yet fully understood, dyscalculia can have a profound impact on people’s lives, especially in terms of educational outcomes and financial success. Early intervention is required to help people with dyscalculia to achieve their full mathematical potential. However, neuromyths can prevent timely diagnosis, create stigma and impact on intervention practices (Gini et al., 2020) and thus, it is important to continue our understanding of dyscalculia and reflect on any beliefs, knowledge and practices. Further research on dyscalculia especially to how it manifests over time is required.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition: DSM-5 (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Publishing.
Bartelet, D., Ansari, D., Vaessen, A., & Blomert, L. (2014). Cognitive subtypes of mathematics learning difficulties in primary education. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35(3), 657-670. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2013.12.010.
Butterworth, B. (2018). Dyscalculia: From science to education. Routledge.
Costa, H.M., Nicholson, B., Donlan, C., & Van Herwegen, J. (2018). Low performance on mathematical tasks in preschoolers : the importance of domain-general and domain-specific abilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 62(4), 292-302.
Devine, A., Soltész, F., Nobes, A., Goswami, U., & Szűcs, D. (2013). Gender differences in developmental dyscalculia depend on diagnostic criteria. Learning and Instruction, 27, 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.02.004
Devine, A., Hill, F., Carey, E. and Szűcs, D. (2018) Cognitive and emotional math problems largely dissociate: Prevalence of developmental dyscalculia and mathematics anxiety. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(3): 431–44.
Evans, M. & Ullman, M.T. (2016). An extension of the procedural deficit hypothesis from developmental language disorders to mathematical disability. Frontiers in Psychology 7 ,1-9.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Cirino, P. T., & Fletcher, J. M. (2008). Intensive Intervention for Students with Mathematics Disabilities: Seven Principles of Effective Practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31(2), 79- 92. https://doi.org/10.2307/20528819
Gini, S., Knowland, V., Thomas, M.S.C. & Van Herwegen, J. (2021). Neuromyths about neurodevelopmental disorders: Misconceptions by educators and the general public. Mind, Brain & Education, 15(4), 289-298.
Kroesbergen, E. H., Huijsmans, M. D. E., & Friso-van den Bos, I. (2022). A Meta-Analysis on the Differences in Mathematical and Cognitive Skills Between Individuals With and Without Mathematical Learning Disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543221132773
Moll, K., Landerl, K., Snowling, M. J., & Schulte-Körne, G. (2019). Understanding comorbidity of learning disorders: Task-dependent estimates of prevalence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,60(3), 286–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12965
Morsanyi, K., van Bers, B.M.C.W., McCormack, T., & McGourty, J. (2018). The prevalence of specific learning disorder in mathematics and comorbidity with other developmental disorders in primary school-age children, British Journal of Psychology, 109(4), 917-940, ISSN: 0007-1269. DOI: 10.1111/bjop.12322.
Szűcs, D., & Goswami, U. (2013). Developmental dyscalculia: Fresh perspectives. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 2(2), 33–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2013.06.004
Van Herwegen, J. (2020). Math Disorder. In: S. Hupp & J. Jewell. The Encyclopedia of Child and Adolescent Development. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK.
von Aster, M. G., & Shalev, R. S. (2007). Number development and developmental dyscalculia. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 49(11), 868–873. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2007.00868.x
New CEN paper: Foreign language provision in English primary schools: making evidence-based pedagogical choices
Dr Sue Whiting and Prof. Chloë Marshall from the CEN have published a new paper in the journal Frontiers in Education. The paper aims to arm education professionals with a critical awareness of the (lack of) evidence supporting the bilingual advantage and innovative foreign language taster courses, to help them make evidence-based decisions regarding how to teach foreign languages in primary schools.
Here, lead author Sue Whiting discusses why certain widely held beliefs (e.g. that learning a second language confers an academic advantage, and that the younger-the-better maxim for naturalistic language learning is valid in classroom settings) are tempting some schools to explore unproven ways of teaching languages to 3-11 year olds.
Is foreign-language learning working?
Fluency in more than one language is clearly an advantage in our modern global age of multicultural societies. However, foreign language learning appears to be in crisis in countries where the majority of the population are English monolinguals, i.e., in Anglophone contexts. This has been attributed to the dominance of English as a global language giving rise to the perception that native English speakers do not need to learn other languages (Lanvers et al., 2021).
Despite a recent government initiative in England (Department for Education (DfE), 2013) to introduce foreign language teaching for one hour a week for Years 3-6 (Key Stage 2; KS2), a motivational crisis appears to start from about 11 years of age, once pupils enter secondary school (Lanvers & Martin, 2021): many pupils perceive learning a foreign language to be irrelevant, boring, difficult, and that ‘English is enough’ (Lanvers et al., 2021).
Does bilingualism itself help cognition?
In addition to any obvious personal, social, cultural and economic benefits of being fluent in two or more languages, there are also controversial claims that a ‘bilingual advantage’ leads to improved academic outcomes (Bialystok et al., 2009). This advantage purportedly arises when the skills that are acquired in coordinating two languages transfer to other, non-linguistic, mental processes relevant to learning in school and thereby improve educational outcomes. The research substantiating these claims, though, is mixed with generally only earlier studies, which usually involved only a small number of participants, revealing benefits (Duñabeitia & Carreiras, 2015; Paap et al., 2015, 2019; Van den Noort et al., 2019): lack of replicability is a particular issue (e.g., Bialystok & Martin, 2004; Shokrkon & Nicoladis, 2021).
The ‘bilingual advantage’ is not a robust effect
Many authors now consider that any bilingual advantage occurs only in ‘very specific and undetermined circumstances’ (Paap et al., 2015) and, in relation to academic performance, is likely to be a neuromyth (CEN, 2023). Furthermore, any benefit is likely to entail regularly engaging with the second language rather than experiencing it for just an hour a week in an artificial, classroom environment with little or no out-of-school exposure.
Beware the sales pitch
Nevertheless some language resource websites are targeting schools and caregivers with aggressive marketing of their products, by suggesting that all children learning foreign languages will gain such wide-reaching, general cognitive benefits in all circumstances. Some of the sale pitches appeal to notions of the brain (such as left-brain versus right-brain learning) that have been identified by other authors to be neuromyths (CEN, n.d.). Furthermore, claims far exceed what the current evidence shows, often citing newspapers’ headline catching articles or online articles written by non-specialists.
Against the backdrop of the disappointing results from the current KS2 Foreign Languages policy, such bilingual advantage claims are encouraging some schools not governed by KS2 regulations, i.e., state schools [Early Years to Year 2 (3–7 years of age)] and independent schools (3–11 years of age) to explore unproven ways of teaching foreign languages so their pupils may enjoy enhanced cognitive ability and academic success.
Here’s what doesn’t work
One unproven, and previously discredited, idea resurrected from the 1980s, albeit with older children, is that of schools giving young children a superficial exposure to multiple foreign languages in the belief that they will become natural linguists with native-like speech in numerous foreign languages. This is despite a lack of evidence from either research into a younger-the-better advantage for classroom language learning (Lightbown & Spada, 2020; Mitchell & Myles, 2019; Myles, 2017) or from language awareness research that superficial exposure to multiple languages would support learning (HMI, 1990, para. 66).
There are huge challenges in transferring the rich, immersive, native-language learning environment, where young children learn by ‘doing’ along with access to many hours a day of high-quality input from multiple social interactions, to the formal foreign language learning primary school classroom that typically provides just one hour of exposure each week. The arguments against providing a shallow exposure of several languages are as valid today as in 1990 when the HMI Language Courses Report concluded that ‘short, watered down, fragmented and thin experiences in too many languages’ provided ‘an utterly inadequate base for mastering practical communication skills in any one language and developing proficiency therein’. Then, as now, a policy of continuous exposure to just one foreign language is considered to be superior.
How to judge a good method for teaching foreign languages
We end our paper by recommending that schools should be extremely wary of being persuaded to be the first school to try something innovative when it is sold as being ‘ahead of the game’, or to take part in a research project for which they have to pay. We provide some objective criteria to help schools, from early years settings to the end of primary, to judge the efficacy of unproven methods of teaching foreign languages (or, indeed, other subjects) before adopting them. Here are our top five recommendations:
Remember, a product sold as ‘ahead of the game’ often means untried and untested
Approach other schools already using the innovative protocol to establish what quantifiable outcomes can be reasonably expected
Check the credentials and qualifications of the person making the proposal. Has the Education Endowment Foundation evaluated the proposed pedagogic approach?
If the innovative scheme is sold as a ‘research project’ then it would have been approved by the relevant university’s Ethics Committee. External funding will usually be available, too, in which case there should be no costs to the school in the form of expenses or for consultancy fees.
Schools should consult with, and request approval from, their board of governors. The Primary Languages Policy white paper recommends developing ‘effective partnerships between head teachers and governors’ (Holmes & Myles, 2019, p. 13, p. 16). Boards often have the diverse experience to properly interrogate innovate schemes for educational provision.
References
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., Green, D. W., & Gollan, T. H. (2009). Bilingual Minds. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 10(3), 89–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100610387084
Department for Education (DfE) (2013). Languages programmes of study: key stage 2 National curriculum in England. Available here (Accessed July 15, 2023).
Duñabeitia, J. A., & Carreiras, M. (2015). The bilingual advantage: acta est fabula? Cortex, 73, 371-372. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2015.06.009
HMI (1990). A survey of language awareness and foreign language taster courses. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office 1990. Available here (Accessed July 15, 2023)
Lanvers, U., & Martin, C. (2021). Choosing language options at secondary school in England. In U. Lanvers, A. S. Thompson, & M. East (Eds.), Language Learning in Anglophone Countries (pp. 89–115). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56654-8
Lanvers, U., Thompson, A. S., & East, M. (2021). Introduction: is language learning in Anglophone countries in crisis? In U. Lanvers, A. S. Thompson, & M. East (Eds.), Language Learning in Anglophone Countries (pp. 1–13). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56654-8
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2020). Teaching and learning L2 in the classroom: it’s about time. Language Teaching,53, 422–432. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444819000454
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2019). Learning French in the UK setting: policy, classroom engagement and attainable learning outcomes. Apples Journal of Applied Language Studies, 13(1), pp. 69–93. https://doi.org/10.17011/apples/urn.201903011690
Myles, F. (2017). Learning foreign languages in primary schools: is younger better? Languages, Society & Policy, 1(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9806
Noort, M. Van Den, Struys, E., Bosch, P., Jaswetz, L., Perriard, B., Yeo, S., … Lim, S. (2019). Does the bilingual advantage in cognitive control exist and if so, what are its modulating factors? Behavioral Sciences, 9(27), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs9030027
Paap, K. R., Johnson, H. A., & Sawi, O. (2015). Bilingual advantages in executive functioning either do not exist or are restricted to very specific and undetermined circumstances. Cortex, 69, 265–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2015.04.014
Paap, K. R., Schwieter, J., & Paradis, M. (2019). The bilingual advantage debate: quantity and quality of the evidence. In J. W. Schwieter (Ed.), The handbook of the neuroscience of multilingualism (pp. 701–735). London:Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119387725.ch34
Shokrkon, A., & Nicoladis, E. (2021). Absence of a bilingual cognitive flexibility advantage: a replication study in preschoolers. PLoS ONE, 16(8), 14–18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255157
Van den Noort,M., Struys, E., Bosch, P., Jaswetz, L., Perriard, B., Yeo, S., … Lim, S. (2019). Does the bilingual advantage in cognitive control exist and if so, what are its modulating factors? Behavioral Sciences, 9(27), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs9030027
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.
Alexandra Morotiis part of the global customer research team at Amazon. Alexandra recently completedBirkbeck-UCL-IoE’s Masters in Educational Neuroscience degree. She was attracted to the course due to the novelty of the field, with its multifaceted approach of connecting different disciplines such as biology, neuroscience, and psychology with education – as well as the fact that it is a conjoined programme offered by three leading institutions. In this blog, we asked Alexandra to tell us about the independent research project she completed as part of her masters degree, in which she investigated educational games. Over to you, Alexandra.
“A quick search for “educational toy” on Google yields 191 million results in under a second, most of which are blog posts with affiliate links or recommendations from media outlets. A search for “educational toys” on Mumsnet, a popular parenting blog in the UK, shows numerous inquiries seeking age-appropriate recommendations. While many articles highlight the best educational toys for specific age groups, there are often no clear criteria for selecting these toys.
The purpose of educational toys is to aid a child’s development in a specific area, such as teaching coding or promoting motor skills. These toys should be active, engaging, meaningful, and socially interactive. However, the labelling of toys as “educational” is not regulated, and the development of educational toys often lacks sufficient research into age-appropriate developmental principles relevant to the claimed outcome.
To evaluate the claims of a popular toy marketed as enhancing social cognition in children through socio-emotional learning, I conducted a small-scale pre-test/post-test experimental design, to investigate the effects on young children of playing with a particular “educational” toy over a period of 14 days.
The selected toy
The toy selected for the research was ‘Big Feelings Pineapple,’ marketed for children aged three years and above. The aim of the toy is to build preschool social-emotional learning skills by supporting the recognition of emotional facial expressions. The toy came with a leaflet of 24 expressions, including the six universal emotions: happiness, sadness, anger, fear, disgust, surprise, which can be constructed using various pieces including eyebrows, eyes, and mouths. Here’s the product image (taken from its Amazon page).
The study
Child participants played with the Pineapple toy and were assessed before and after the intervention on four tasks – two experimental and two control tasks. I evaluated the child’s interaction with the toy through an in-the-moment play assessment tool, and then coded parental observations from a daily play diary.
I found that, although the Pineapple toy was good at promoting communication, it scored lower than predicted in the “Thinking and learning” and “Social interaction” dimensions of my measures. Children were mostly engaged with the toy when their parents were involved, but the toy lacked context and explanation when used alone. Parents who engaged their children with the toy in a meaningful way had more in-depth conversations about emotions later in the trial, and the toy was seen as a positive facilitator for conversations on emotions.
The children showed higher levels of emotion recognition post-play than they did pre-play, but the improvement was not related to the number of times the child played with the toy. This makes it ambiguous whether it was the toy having the effect or natural development. I wish I had included a ‘control group’ of children who had played with another type of toy, to check for this!
Broader lessons from my research study
While initiatives like Common Sense Media exist to help parents choose the best products for their kids, they do not include educational toys. Recently, some researchers have started to pay closer attention to the overuse of the label “educational” in marketing toys, with some researchers also turning their attention to educational value of “educational” apps. For example, see papers by Kathy Hirsh-Pasek and colleagues, Marisa Meyer and colleagues, and Shayl Griffith and colleagues.
In my view, an important future step is to establish guidelines for the development, marketing, and testing of educational toys to ensure that they are truly beneficial for a child’s development. This could involve consultation with researchers in the field, qualitative research such as focus groups and in-depth interviews with stakeholders, and longitudinal studies to assess the educational claims made by manufacturers. By doing so, parents can make informed decisions about which toys truly aid their child’s development. But my study suggests that a key role for toys may be how they support interactions between parents and children that in turn stimulate learning.
I think children’s learning should be a collective effort that goes beyond the household. Society should ensure that cities and environments, curricula, and manufacturers’ claims support educational experiences that prepare children for a future where adaptability and mental balance are crucial.”
Thanks, so much, Alexandra! If you are interested in this topic, take a look atthis articlewhich considers whether toys and games improve children’s thinking generally or just make kids better at playing games. Andthis articleby Yuval Noah Harari, the author of Sapiens, speculating on what skills children may have to learn in 2050!
The CEN summer seminar series is up and running. Open to the public and taking place online on Thursdays at 4pm (UK time), with some hybrid sessions, the Centre for Educational Neuroscience seminar series provides bite-sized insights into cutting-edge research in the field, presented by researchers from across the globe.
These seminars are designed for anyone who is interested in educational neuroscience, including teachers, students, researchers, and the general public.
This term, the CEN seminar series offers a wide range of captivating presentations. In our first seminar on Thursday 20th April from 4 pm – 5 pm UK time, we are delighted to welcome Prof Nienke van Atteveldt from Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam who will be talking about the neurocognitive interplay between motivation, learning behavior and achievement. Upcoming highlights include Prof. Roberto Filippi on growing up/becoming multilingual, Dr Dominic Kelly on using secondary data and multiverse analyses to extend adolescent research, Roisin Perry on executive function goes to school: A focus on socioeconomic status and autism, Yasin Arslan on the role of educational neuroscience in teacher training, and Dr Nandini Chatterjee Singh from UNESCO MGIEP asking: can game-play build a better world?
For the full timetable of the seminars on offer this term and to explore recordings of previous seminars, check out our Seminar Series and Conferences website here.
In this blog, the CEN’s Professor Chloë Marshall describes the findings of a recent project to investigate how easily hearing adults can learn sign language.
It is most people’s experience that learning a language is much harder in adulthood than it is in childhood, whether or not there is a critical or sensitive period for language-learning (Most learning happens in the first 3 years | Centre for Educational Neuroscience; Hartshorne et al., 2018). Research has shown that babies and young children possess powerful cognitive mechanisms for extracting statistical regularities from a stream of speech or sign language, and that these mechanisms allow them to ‘break into’ language by mapping word forms to meanings (Berent et al., 2021; Hay et al., 2011). But what about adults? Do they still retain these mechanisms? And if so, can they utilise them when confronted not only with a new language but a language in a modality that they have not previously encountered, namely a sign language?
What can hearing adults learn from viewing a few minutes of naturalistic sign language?
A project led by the CEN’s Chloë Marshall and funded by the Leverhulme Trust set out to investigate what hearing adults can learn from viewing just a few minutes of naturalistic sign language. She and her colleagues Dr Julia Hofweber, Prof. Marianne Gullberg, Lizzy Aumônier and Dr Vikki Janke adapted a paradigm used by Gullberg in previous work. Gullberg et al. (2010) had demonstrated that adult speakers of Dutch were able, after just a few minutes of watching a weather forecast presented in Mandarin Chinese, to learn something about word forms, word meanings, and sound regularities of this unfamiliar language.
Weather forecasts in Swedish Sign Language
Chloë and her team wanted to investigate whether English-speaking adults who had never learned any sign language would be able to learn similar linguistic information after short exposure to Swedish Sign Language (Svenskt teckenspråk, STS). They developed a four-minute weather forecast in STS, within which were embedded 22 ‘target’ signs that varied in occurrence frequency (they occurred either three or eight times in the forecast) and in iconicity (how closely the form of the sign resembled its meaning).
They also created three experimental tasks. In Task 1, participants were shown a mix of target signs and signs that they had not viewed in the forecast, and they had to respond ‘yes’ or ‘no’ when asked whether they had seen the signs before. In Task 2, participants were shown each target sign and had to write down what they thought it meant. In Task 3, participants were shown target signs and signs that could or could not be signs of STS, and they had to make a judgement as to whether they thought each sign was a real sign of the language or not. Participants viewed the weather forecast and then did just one of the three tasks. The task was a surprise for them – they were not warned beforehand that they would have to do it. In this way the researchers were testing implicit and unattended learning.
A still image from the Swedish Sign Language weather forecast
What the study found
Although participants found all three tasks challenging, the results from Task 1 (which assessed the recognition of sign forms) and Task 2 (which assessed whether participants could work out the meaning of the signs) indicated that they had managed to learn something. Participants were more accurate in recognising and assigning meaning to signs that occurred more frequently in the forecast and that were more iconic. Unlike in the original Mandarin Chinese study of Gullberg et al. (2010), however, participants did not appear to have learnt anything about what forms possible signs can take. Nevertheless, taken as a whole this exciting project has shown that the cognitive mechanisms that adults bring to ‘breaking into’ a new language are not limited to just speech, but can be employed even when the language modality is an unfamiliar one.
A still image from one of the target signs used in the experimental tasks, meaning ‘rainbow’. This is an example of a highly iconic sign, because it is visually very similar to a rainbow. Other target signs were less iconic. For example, the sign for ‘mountain’ involves the two fists rubbing past one another, which does not resemble the shape of a mountain at all. Sign-naïve adults found signs like ‘mountain’ harder to remember and guess the meaning of than highly iconic signs such as ‘rainbow’.
What are the implications?
Although the project was not designed to evaluate the effectiveness of sign language teaching, the findings have potential implications for education. The fact that both the form and the meaning of signs were better learnt when they occurred with higher frequency in the input is not surprising given what scientists already know about the role of frequency in language learning (Ellis, 2002), but it provides support for teachers manipulating the frequency of signs in their teaching materials and motivation for learners to seek repeated exposure to such materials. More innovatively, the findings also support the inclusion of signs that are high in iconicity because their meaning is more guessable.
An additional finding from the study, namely that participants’ scores on a range of cognitive tasks such as English vocabulary, executive functions and non-verbal reasoning did not correlate with their learning, suggests that at the early stages of sign language learning the characteristics of the learning materials might matter more for learning than students’ cognitive abilities.
More work needed on second language learning of sign
This set of studies needs replicating in different sign languages and with different input materials. Nevertheless, the findings make an important contribution to the field of the second language learning of sign, where much less is known compared to spoken language learning (Schӧnstrӧm & Marshall, 2022). One paper from the project has been published (Hofweber et al., 2022), another has been accepted for publication (Hofweber et al., 2023), and others are in process. Please contact Chloë if you would like further information (chloe.marshall@ucl.ac.uk).
REFERENCES
Berent, I., de la Cruz-Pavía, I., Brentari, D. & Gervain, J. (2021). Infants differentially extract rules from language. Scientific Reports, 11, 20001. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99539-8
Ellis, N. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for Theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,24(2), 143-188. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002024
Gullberg, M., Roberts, L., Dimroth, C., Veroude, K., & Indefrey, P. (2010). Adult language learning after minimal exposure to an unknown natural language. Language Learning, 60, 5-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00598.x
Hartshorne, J., Tenenbaum, J., & Pinker, S. (2018). A critical period for second language acquisition: Evidence from 2/3 million English speakers. Cognition, 177:263-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.04.007
Hay, J. F., Pelucchi, B., Graf Estes, K., & Saffran, J. R. (2011). Linking sounds to meanings: Infant statistical learning in a natural language. Cognitive Psychology, 63, 93-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.06.002
Hofweber, J. E., Aumônier, L., Janke, V., Gullberg, M., & Marshall, C. (2022). Breaking into language in a new modality: The role of input and individual differences in recognising signs. Frontiers in Psychology, 13:895880. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.895880
Hofweber, J., Aumônier, L., Janke, V., Gullberg, M., & Marshall, C. R. (accepted). Which aspects of visual motivation aid the implicit learning of signs at first exposure? Language Learning.
Mott, M., Midgley, K., Holcomb, P., & Emmorey, K. (2020). Cross-modal translation priming and iconicity effects in deaf signers and hearing learners of American Sign Language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,23, 1032-1044. doi:10.1017/S1366728919000889
Schӧnstrӧm, K., & Marshall, C.R. (2022). SLA2: Linking the domains of second language acquisition and sign language acquisition. Introduction to special issue ‘second language acquisition of sign languages’. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 13, 145-158. https://doi.org/10.1075/lia.00014.eng
In this blog, Dr. Emma Meaburn, our resident genetics expert, discusses the latest research in using direct measures of DNA variation to predict educational outcomes. Does this work? How can it be useful?
Individual differences in educational traits are heritable
We each contain in every cell in our body the complete set of genetic instructions to build a human, with the distinctly human characteristics of a highly developed brain and the capacity to reason and communicate. Despite the overarching genetic similarity between us, there are numerous – and important – differences in our DNA sequence. If you were to pick any two unrelated individuals at random and examine their DNA sequence, you would find that they differ at roughly 1 in every 1,200 DNA letters (bases). It is now beyond doubt that these genetic differences account for a portion of the differences we see between individuals in how they think, feel and behave. This is termed ‘heritability’. Twin and DNA-based studies have robustly demonstrated that individual differences in educationally relevant traits such as time spent in education (Lee et al., 2018), general cognitive function (Davies et al., 2018) and even academic subjects studied (Rimfeld et al., 2016) are heritable. To illustrate the size of this genetic influence, a recent DNA-based study by Donati et al identified SNP-heritabilities ranging from 41-53% for performance in National Curriculum-based Standardised Assessment tests (SATs) of English, Maths and Science at 11 and 14 years of age (Donati et al, 2021).
Polygenic scores capture a portion of the heritability of educational traits
Let’s refer to a difference in a DNA base between individuals as a ‘genetic variant’. One key insight from recent large-scale genetic studies is that there are many thousands of common genetic variants that together contribute to the heritability of educational traits and outcomes. It transpires that even though each individual DNA variant makes a small contribution, they can be summed together into a single genetic ‘score’ that predicts a portion of the differences we observe or measure between people. This aggregate measure has been termed a ‘polygenic score’ (or polygenic index). To calculate a person’s polygenic score for a particular trait, you sum up the total number of risk-increasing and risk-decreasing variants found in their genome, each weighted by their magnitude of impact. The polygenic score for number of ‘years of education’ completed predicts around 11% of the variance in years of schooling in adolescents and adults (Lee et al., 2018). To put the size of this explanatory power into context, this is better than household income, although not quite as good as maternal education as a predictor of child educational attainment.
Studies measuring DNA variation directly and attempting to predict educational outcomes struggled for a long time because the signal they were trying to detect was so tiny. The studies had to include thousands and thousands of participants before statistically reliable links between DNA variation and years spent in education could be detected. Lee et al.‘s (2018) study involved 1.1 million participants. The same group of researchers last year pushed the number to over 3 million participants and now reported that they could predict up to 16% of differences in educational attainment from direct measures of DNA variation (Okbay et al., 2022).
Polygenic scores for early identification of individuals at risk
Polygenic scores are normally distributed in a population: some people will have a higher score relative to everyone else, while some people will have lower score, but most people will be average. In an out-of-sample prediction, 75% of individuals in the top 10% of the ‘years of schooling’ polygenic distribution go to university, as compared to 25% of individuals in the bottom 10% (Plomin & von Stumm, 2018). Educational systems have limited resources, and these resources are currently targeted on interventions designed to support students who struggle. Given the same finite resources, low polygenic scores could be a mechanism for triggering in-person assessment or early (or more frequent) monitoring, before the emergence of overt problems. In principle, measures of DNA variation are available at birth.
The (current) challenges for polygenic prediction
Aside from the (very real) practical and ethical challenges of requiring genetic data for children, what are the key barriers for polygenic prediction of educational attainment?
Firstly, it is important to remember that polygenic scores indicate propensity, not inevitability. This is because they do not capture all genetic effects, and genetic effects will always be contingent upon the (home and school) environments in which we grow up. This means that many individuals born with a low polygenic score will still flourish academically. Conversely, individuals with very high polygenic scores may not perform well academically for other reasons, such as experiencing a large environmental risk or having genetic effects not captured by the polygenic score. Research to identify the full spectrum of genetic effects is ongoing (Ganna et al., 2016), but in parallel we need a better understanding of how polygenic effects vary as a function of the environment (Domingue et al., 2020).
Secondly, the studies on which polygenic scores are derived have been limited to populations with European genetic ancestries and the current Educational Attainment (EA) polygenic scores are not as accurate in its predictive abilities in non-European samples. This severely limits generalisability, and risks increasing economic and education disparities between European and non-European populations (Martin et al., 2019). To redress this imbalance culturally and ancestrally diverse genetic studies are a research priority, but the results will take time to feed through (Peterson et al., 2019).
Thirdly, polygenic scores for educational prediction will arguably remain of limited practical value until we know what the optimal environments are that will maximise genetic potential. For this, we need a much better understanding of how polygenic influences impact molecular, biological and neural processes to cause cognitive and behavioural differences between people. Important research is addressing this question (see Dreary et al., 2020; van der Meer & Kaufmann, 2022), but we are still some way off from having a good explanative account of polygenic effects.
“How does society want polygenic scores to be used in education? An analogy can be made with attainment-based selection and streaming in schools … but now we are dealing with a marker of academic potential rather than realised performance”
Finally, even if these challenges were overcome, a central question to ask is how does society want polygenic scores to be used in education? An analogy can be made with attainment-based selection and streaming in schools, the benefits of which continue to be debated (Rix & Ingham, 2021). The arguments are the same, but now we are one step removed and dealing with a marker of academic potential, rather than realised performance. For example, polygenic scores could theoretically be used to personalise educational provision and maximise every student’s educational potential. Alternatively, they could be used to focus resources and identify students deemed to have genetically endowed promise. The answer to this difficult – but important – question is not clear cut.
Future perspectives
So where does this leave us? Polygenic scores should not be ignored, but the hype (and concern) around them needs to be informed by what they can and cannot realistically deliver. Polygenic scores will never definitively predict complex educational outcomes, as heritability is not 100%. However, they do predict (statistically) meaningful differences in educational traits between individuals in a population, and this predictive power is likely to increase.
If their potential in educational settings is to be actualised, we need a clearer understanding of how they relate to, and can be integrated with, existing (non-genetic) measures of educational performance and potential. Only then can we progress in a way that ensures educational and social inequalities in the classroom are mitigated rather than exacerbated.
—
If you are interested in these topics, see our recent CEN seminar discussing the book “The Genetic Lottery” by behavioural geneticist Kathryn Paige-Harden:
Ganna A, Genovese G, Howrigan DP, Byrnes A, et al. (2016). Ultra-rare disruptive and damaging mutations influence educational attainment in the general population. Nat Neurosci. 2016 Dec;19(12):1563-1565. doi: 10.1038/nn.4404. Epub 2016 Oct 3. PMID: 27694993; PMCID: PMC5127781.
Martin AR, Kanai M, Kamatani Y, Okada Y, Neale BM, Daly MJ. Clinical use of current polygenic risk scores may exacerbate health disparities. Nat Genet. 2019 Apr;51(4):584-591. doi: 10.1038/s41588-019-0379-x. Epub 2019 Mar 29. Erratum in: Nat Genet. 2021 May;53(5):763. PMID: 30926966; PMCID: PMC6563838.
Peterson RE, Kuchenbaecker K, Walters RK, et al. (2019). Genome-wide Association Studies in Ancestrally Diverse Populations: Opportunities, Methods, Pitfalls, and Recommendations. Cell. 2019 Oct 17;179(3):589-603. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2019.08.051. Epub 2019 Oct 10. PMID: 31607513; PMCID: PMC6939869.
Plomin R, von Stumm S. The new genetics of intelligence. Nat Rev Genet. 2018;19:148–59.
Rimfeld K, Ayorech Z, Dale PS, Kovas Y, Plomin R. Genetics affects choice of academic subjects as well as achievement. Sci Rep. 2016 Jun 16;6:26373. doi: 10.1038/srep26373. PMID: 27310577; PMCID: PMC4910524.
Our team has been hard at work updating our existing articles about common neuromyths (‘Neuro-hit or neuro-myth?’) to reflect the most up-to-date evidence. You’ll be relieved to hear that nothing has flipped from myth to fact or vice versa! So far, six articles have been updated, and the rest will follow over the coming months. Look out for the ‘Now Updated’ button to catch up on what the most current evidence is for each topic – some changes have been quite small, while other articles have had major rewrites!
Here are some highlights of the changes and additions:
Is ADHD on the rise in UK schools? This article now reflects changes to the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual [DSM]” – that’s how conditions are officially defined – which now allow individuals to be diagnosed with both ADHD and autism. We’ve added new content on contemporary research into sex differences in ADHD. The article also has a new title, a new image, and some rephrasing to improve inclusivity of the language.
Diet makes a difference to learning. Our additions to this article include evidence regarding the links between breakfast consumption and GCSE point scores, and the longer-term effects of healthier diet.
Mindfulness has a place in the classroom. We’ve extensively revised this article in light of evidence from a recent large-scale trial with teenagers in UK schools. The overall verdict has been changed to ‘It’s complicated’. Two outdated external resources have been removed and a newer resource on implementing mindfulness in schools has been added instead.
Girls and boys have different cognitive abilities. Throughout the article, language has been changed to reflect distinctions between sex and gender roles present in contemporary literature, with a note defining how the terms ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ were used in the article. We’ve added references to new research on topics that include: eye gaze strategies and gender identity on tests of mental rotation; math anxiety; and the role of cultural gender-egalitarian values in academic achievement. Lastly, we’ve added a new resource from the Women and Equalities Committee featuring lots of reports on sex differences in education and employment.
Well-rested children do better at school. We’ve added new findings on the role of delayed school start times in academic outcomes, sleep disruptions in neurodevelopmental conditions, and sleep benefits for explicit memory (i.e., learning facts!) in children.
Learning two languages gives an advantage at school. This revised article now features some reframing of content regarding the debate over the potential bilingual advantage in executive functioning skills. We’ve also dug into some of the finer details of methods in the studies, considering the diversity of multilinguals as a group.
We hope you enjoy catching up on the new evidence as much as we have!
If you’re hungry for more neuromyths content, or perhaps a bit time-poor for a full article, we are also currently releasing a series of videos that distil the major points from these updated pages to less than a minute each. The videos will be going out on our Twitter (@UoL_CEN) and our brand new TikTok page (@educationalneuroscience). Take a look and let us know if you like them!
The study
In this blog, the CEN’s Professor Chloë Marshall describes the findings of a recent project to investigate how easily hearing adults can learn sign language.
