I need help with this assignment

Oxford Review of Education Vol. 35, No. 5, October 2009, pp. 587–600

ISSN 0305-4985 (print)/ISSN 1465-3915 (online)/09/050587–14 © 2009 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/03054980903216317

The psychology of education: achievements and challenges W. Ray Crozier* University of East Anglia Taylor and FrancisCORE_A_421805.sgm10.1080/03054980903216317Oxford Review of Education0305-4985 (print)/1465-3915 (online)Original Article2009Taylor & Francis355000000October 2009Professor W. [email protected]

Psychology has been closely involved with educational research, policy and practice since its emer- gence as a scientific discipline in the late 19th century but it has occupied a less certain place in recent years. This paper describes aspects of the organisational framework of psychology as a disci- pline and draws upon Research Assessment Exercise data to gain a picture of the research capacity of the psychology of education. The division of research in universities between psychology depart- ments and education departments is identified and its relevance to the ‘demographic crisis’ in educational research considered. Three areas of recent applications of cognitive psychology are reviewed and promising intervention studies are outlined. The implications of demographic trends in educational research together with indications of the limited capacity of the psychology of educa- tion pose threats to the potential to develop original education-based psychological research and to overcome limitations of much existing research.

Introduction

Psychology is a broad discipline, and its constituent areas—which might be identified as social psychology, developmental psychology, biological psychology, cognitive psychology, and individual differences – are applied to the study of education and to educational policy and practice. How could they not, one might think, given psychol- ogists’ extensive studies of processes of learning and memory; of children’s develop- ment, their acquisition of skills such as reading and writing, their understanding of number, science, or moral principles? Psychology also studies children of exceptional abilities, problems of adjustment, parent–child relations, social interactions and rela- tionships, friendships, peer influences, inter- and intra-group processes, bullying, attitudes, motivation and emotion, and so on. Nevertheless, despite these endeav- ours the relation of psychology to education is problematic. There are debates within psychology as to how these topics should be conceptualised and studied and there

*School of Social Work and Psychology, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK. Email: [email protected]

588 W. R. Crozier

are sustained criticisms of the nature of the discipline from within and outside psychology.

The concerns of this special issue are the relations between education and its disci- plines in the context of the ‘demographic crisis’ in education research (Mills et al., 2006). I address these concerns in relation to psychology by offering a brief overview of psychology’s major contributions to education in the past, a description of the organisational framework of psychology and its relation to education, consideration of the state of research in the psychology of education, and reflections on selected current applications. One theme relates to the implications of the distinction between research in the psychology of education that is undertaken in university psychology departments and research that is located in departments and schools of education. The distinction is relevant for a number of reasons. First, the demographic profiles of psychology and education are quite distinct when these are defined in terms of Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) units of assessment (Mills et al., 2006). Second, the division may contribute to the fragmentation of research in the psychol- ogy of education. On the one hand, the psychology of education plays only a small part in the research activities of psychology departments, where theoretical develop- ments and methodological originality and refinement tend to be valued more highly than applications. On the other hand, psychological research is scattered across many education departments, few of which have a significant presence of psychologists (Crozier, 2007). The demographic crisis ought to be considered in this context.

Psychology’s major contributions in the past

Psychology has been closely involved with educational research, policy and practice since its emergence as a scientific discipline in the final years of the 19th century. The first professors of education in British day training colleges and universities drew upon psychological principles in their teaching and textbooks, and their work in education departments preceded, and in a number of cases led directly to the estab- lishment of departments of psychology in the universities (Thomas, 1996). The research conducted in education departments contributed to the development of psychology as a research based discipline; theoretical and methodological advances in psychology were located in both education and psychology departments. A similar picture emerges if we focus on the application of psychology to the education of chil- dren with special educational needs; the seminal contributions of Ann and Alan Clarke, Neil O’Connor, and Jack and Barbara Tizard in the 1950s were made in psychology and education departments (Hall, 2008); psychologists would move from one to the other without detriment to their research.

Thus, psychology played a key role as ‘a foundation discipline’ in the emergence of educational studies. Psychological theory and research were applied to a range of educational matters, from the study of learning processes in individuals, including students with learning difficulties, to pedagogy. Furthermore, unlike other disciplines contributing to educational research, professional psychologists established a statu- tory role within the education system. By the 1920s the role of the educational

Psychology of education 589

psychologist was established in the British education system, particularly in the field of special educational needs. Although educational psychologists have a statutory role in assessment and the provision of services for children, they also regard research as an important part of their role.

Yet recent commentators on psychology, both within and beyond the discipline and profession, see its influence as having waned and the value of its contributions as less certain. Thomas (1996, p. 240) points out that doubts about the application of general psychological principles to teaching individuals were expressed as early as 1904. Norwich (2000) analyses psychology’s difficulties in terms of uncertainties within psychology, uncertainties within education, and uncertainties in the relations between the two. Anxieties about the psychology of education pre-date the concerns about the demographic crisis in educational research and scholarship that are the focus of this issue, yet will no doubt contribute to the crisis and the form of its resolution.

The mechanisms and sites of production

A useful starting point is to consider the role of the British Psychological Society (BPS). It accredits undergraduate degree courses, setting out a curriculum to be followed and minimum standards of resources. It currently approves nearly 400 degree courses at over 100 institutions, approximately 11,000 students graduating each year with an accredited degree. The BPS also accredits postgraduate profes- sional training courses including courses leading to the qualification for educational psychologists (most recently the Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology, which admitted its first cohort in 2006). The Society’s structure includes Sections, which bring together researchers in areas of psychology, for example the Education Section, and Divisions, which are organisations of professional psychologists, includ- ing a division for educational psychologists. The BPS organises and facilitates confer- ences and symposia and publishes major research journals including the British Journal of Educational Psychology, founded in 1931. In summary, research in psychol- ogy, including the psychology of education, is supported directly and indirectly by a national organisation which is outside the university and research centre systems but is closely linked to them. There are inevitably tensions within an organisation that is the representative body for British psychologists and which has to accommodate diverse positions within a broad discipline with conflicting theoretical and method- ological approaches. Notwithstanding these tensions, it has helped to provide coher- ence to psychology. There is a degree of consensus on what constitutes the mainstream and the BPS plays a significant role in this.

The good health of psychology as a discipline is evident in the numbers studying it at university (HESA data for 2006–2007 show that it is among the most popular subjects in higher education, with 72,475 students including 6415 full-time postgrad- uate students) and in rapidly growing numbers at GCSE, A-level and foundation levels. This helps sustain a sizeable academic community of lecturers and, indirectly, researchers. A survey conducted in 2003 showed that psychology departments had an average of 5.6 postdoctoral researchers and 8.3 final-year PhD students (Norgate

590 W. R. Crozier

& Ginsborg, 2006), suggesting that future generations of researchers are being nurtured.

Nationally, student numbers on education degree courses are comparable to psychology numbers. However, psychology plays only a small part in the education degree curriculum and this part has been shrinking since the 1980s following government-led changes to teacher training which introduced a greater emphasis on students’ experience in schools and, within the shorter time spent in university, increased focus on curriculum subjects. Consequently, education students spend much less time on psychology, which tends to form part of a general professional studies component of the university course (Norwich, 2000, p. 165). This trend augments the problems faced by research in the psychology of education that are associated with the demographic trends identified by Mills et al. (2006); education departments might not regard it as a priority to replace a vacant psychology post with a psychologist.

In summary, the discipline of psychology is currently in a strong position, attracting substantial numbers of undergraduate and postgraduate students and supported by an organisation that has close links with university departments and professional practitioners and which has considerable influence on the university curriculum. The position of psychology within education departments is less secure. How might this impact upon research in the psychology of education? It is relevant to note that research in the psychology of education is located in university psychology departments as well as in education departments. As an illustration, a snapshot of the 83 articles published in two recent volumes of the British Journal of Educational Psychology shows that 50% of the articles had first-authors whose affiliation was in psychology compared to 32% in education and 5% in educational psychology (the remainder had other affiliations in health, communication and so on). The proportions are similar for UK and inter- national authors (68% of authors were based outside the UK). A different picture emerges if comparable issues of the British Educational Research Journal are analysed. Four per cent of affiliations were from the Psychology and Human Development Department at the Institute of Education, London; no other psychology departments were represented. Eight per cent of articles had international authors.

One picture of the capacity of research in the psychology of education can be obtained from analysis of RAE information on university research publications. Crozier (2007) reported an analysis of the outputs submitted by university institutions to the RAE 2001 Education Unit of Assessment (UoA) (HERO, 2002). A systematic search for authors of publications in psychology journals identified 235 individuals who were located in 56 of the 82 institutions making submissions; this constitutes some 10% of the 2330 individuals whose work was submitted to the Education UoA. The psychologists (defined in this way) were dispersed across institutions. The mean number of psychologists per institution where they were located was 4.2; 17 institu- tions were represented by a single psychologist while only five submitted 12 or more. The psychological research submitted to the Education unit of assessment was also dispersed, and psychologists’ outputs were published in a large number of different journals (351 articles published in 106 journals). The journals could be classified into

Psychology of education 591

four groups: general psychology (22% of journal submissions); psychology of educa- tion (32%); special educational needs (36%); counselling, psychotherapy and psychi- atry (9%). Few of the journals were international and not many are rated as having ‘high impact’ in the social sciences.

These data omit research in education that was submitted to the Psychology UoA and thus this representation of psychology of education research underestimates its capacity. Nevertheless, when considering the impact of demographic changes on research in education it is important to have some sense of the capacity of its constit- uent disciplines. This analysis shows that psychology was dispersed across university education departments, few of which had a concentration of psychologists. This may diminish the capacity to undertake sustained, large-scale psychological research. If research were published in a smaller number of ‘high impact’ journals this could encourage more stringent criteria for publication, potentially requiring authors to produce more convincing evidence. It would facilitate the cumulative development of a knowledge base as advocated, among others, by the National Education Research Forum (2000). Details of the outputs of the 2008 RAE are not available at the time of writing; it would be valuable to conduct a comparable study to see if capacity has changed and what the implications of findings might be for the future of psychology applied to education.

In summary, psychology faces difficulties in its position in education degree and teacher education courses and, as this analysis of RAE data implies, in educational research. Nevertheless, high quality applied research is being conducted and I now consider issues in the application of psychology to education before reviewing exam- ples of such research.

Selected contributions to the psychology of education

Applications of psychology

As indicated at the beginning of this paper psychology is a broad discipline. It eschews overarching theory and its explanatory models tend to have specific areas of focus. Cognitive psychology is the dominant paradigm within the mainstream. The cogni- tive process models that have been constructed are increasingly augmented by cogni- tive neuroscience models that aim to relate these processes to brain structures and functions. The influence of European-led contributions to cognitive psychology—the theories and research of Piaget and Vygotsky for example—has grown and has provided a framework for the development of theories and research that aim to embed cognitive processes within their cultural and social context. This trend is evident in both psychology and the psychology of education.

Theoretical and methodological developments have gone hand in hand with tech- nological innovations. The computer metaphor of mind led to the development of cognitive psychology and, more recently, to connectionist models that aim to model the neural networks that underpin learning. Innovations in information technology have facilitated increasingly sophisticated studies of perception and memory.

592 W. R. Crozier

Developments in brain imaging have encouraged the rapid growth of cognitive neuropsychology. Much cognitive research is laboratory based although these labora- tories can be located in or are associated with applied settings, in medicine, for exam- ple. How is this research applied to education? To begin to answer this, it is useful to consider the nature of applied psychology. Smith (2005) proposed a typology of rela- tions between developmental psychology and education.

1. Independence. Each field pursues its research agenda without reference to the other. Much psychological research is of this nature and much educational research does not draw upon psychology, explicitly rejects it, or seeks a different kind of psychology to the one that is currently dominant. Nevertheless, the education of children must draw upon some kind of theory of child development, if only to select age-appropriate materials and teaching strategies. This theory can be built up through teachers’ classroom experience to exert a powerful influence on practice and in socialising new teachers into ‘what works’. Policies and guide- lines produced by the government and agencies also exert an influence on prac- tice; these do not necessarily draw upon educational psychology and may or may not be consistent with teachers’ understanding of what works. Theories of prac- tice are systematised and promoted through instruction and textbooks in peda- gogy, again without necessarily drawing upon social science theory. It can be bolstered by empirical research that uses social science methodology. For exam- ple, research investigates the influence of ability grouping on attainment (reviewed by Hallam, 2002), using established research methodology without necessarily making reference to psychological theorising on learning, the role of social groups in learning or the nature or measurement of ability.

2. Relevance. Smith discusses this in terms of speculation that developments in one field might be useful to the other: relevance is asserted but not pursued. Psychologists frequently allude to possible educational benefits of their work without spelling these out. Also, there are many claims, often made by commer- cial organisations, about the effectiveness of particular forms of instruction being based on findings about brain function or learning styles, and psychologists have a valuable critical role here, helping education professionals to understand what claims can be supported by current psychological and neuropsychological evidence (Goswami, 2008b).

3. Implication. This goes beyond relevance in that development in one field leads to greater understanding in the other, and can lead to change in practice. Implication can be at a very general level, for example, the change in understand- ing the nature of learning from reliance on drill, repetition and ‘mental exercise’ to emphasis on children’s thinking, imagination, play and the social nature of learning that followed changes in views on the nature of childhood influenced by educational thinkers such as Rousseau and Pestalozzi, but also by psychologists such as Piaget, Vygotsky and Bruner. Implication can also be more specific, for example the emphasis on whole word reading and learning to read as a ‘guessing game’ that was influenced by reading research in the 1970s.

Psychology of education 593

4. Application. This tests whether an implication works in practice and whether it is conducive to good practice. I consider this in the next section.

5. Inter-dependence. Rather than application from one field to the other, this involves both fields working together at their intersection. Smith considers this to be rare in the case of developmental psychology and education. A similar point is made by Norwich (2000, p. 169) who argues for a psychology grounded in educational practice rather than a field of knowledge to be applied to education from general psychology.

The next section offers a selective review of recent research that has aimed to apply psychology to education and that offers more than ‘relevance’ in Smith’s terms. It has to be selective because theories and research in all areas of psychology have been applied to education; I emphasise cognitive psychology, focusing on applied research carried out in Britain even though the theoretical underpinnings may have been developed elsewhere. A more detailed review of research into cognitive development together with indication of some of its implications for learning is provided by Goswami and Bryant (2007).

Working memory

The model of working memory developed by Baddeley and Hitch (1974) is distinctive in that it occupies a central place in contemporary cognitive psychology and is one of the few theoretical developments to do so that originated in Britain. Rather than conceptualise memory as a series of passive stores the model analyses it as a structured process that we use to carry out a wide range of mental tasks. Baddeley and Hitch derived a number of predictions about performance, many flowing from the proposition that working memory has limited capacity in its exec- utive processes and in the phonological or visuo-spatial coding that keeps material temporarily active. The educational application of the model has been investigated in a number of studies, for example, of children’s mental arithmetic (Adams & Hitch, 1997) and specific learning difficulties of children with Down’s syndrome (Hulme & Mackenzie, 1992). Research conducted by Gathercole and her associ- ates (Gathercole et al., 2006 provide a review) has shown that individual differ- ences in children’s performance on working-memory dependent tasks predict their subsequent reading, vocabulary and mathematical attainments even when other sources of variation, for example in ability test scores, are statistically controlled. The research shows that the precise relations between working memory and school attainment depend on the child’s age and the curriculum—what is being learnt at any one time. It found that teachers were frequently unaware of their students’ difficulties on memory tasks. Working closely with teachers, the team has devel- oped materials for assessing students’ memory task performance and supporting their learning in the classroom (Gathercole & Alloway, 2008). Current projects include classroom based studies, the construction of screening techniques, inter- vention studies, and work with children with learning difficulties.

594 W. R. Crozier

Learning to read

Our second example concerns issues that would be important for education whether or not there was any relevant psychological evidence, namely how children in a liter- ate society learn to read. Huey (1908, p. 6) wrote that ‘to completely analyse what we do when we read would almost be the acme of a psychologist’s achievements, for it would be to describe very many of the most intricate workings of the human mind’. Considerable progress has been made in this analysis. For example, Gough (1972) drew upon eye-movement studies to construct a model that had the bold aim of spec- ifying what takes place during one second of reading, from the eye alighting on the text to speech. Recent research based on brain imaging techniques has begun to spec- ify the activity in the brain that takes place during this process. For example, Wolf (2008, pp. 145–155) extends Gough’s work to offer a neuroscientific account of the processes that take place in the first half-second of reading. Research has also made significant progress in investigating the neural structures involved in learning to read (Goswami, 2008a). Huey would surely have been impressed with the progress made in analysing the intricate processes involved in reading and learning to read. Research also investigates children’s phonological awareness (Bradley & Bryant, 1983; Goswami & Bryant, 2007, pp. 16–17) and comprehension, including the study of children who have adequate decoding skills but demonstrate reading comprehension difficulties (Nation, 2005).

The teaching of reading has been central to debates about standards in education and policies designed to raise standards. Psychological research has the potential to inform best practice in teaching reading in various ways. First, its evidence contrib- utes to reports that influence national policies, for example, the Rose Review (Rose, 2006), which was commissioned by the government to review the teaching of early reading in England.

Second, psychologists engage in debate with educational researchers and other experts on literacy and the teaching of reading, writing and spelling, for example, a series of articles on the ‘simple model’ of reading in Literacy, the journal of the United Kingdom Literacy Association (Goswami, 2008a; Kirby & Savage, 2008; Stuart, Stainthorp & Snowling, 2008). Psychologists also offer critiques of approaches to teaching reading and related skills, on the basis of theoretical understanding of the processes involved and the quality of the research evidence that is presented in reports and policy documents, for example, the insufficient weight given to randomised control trials (Wyse & Goswami, 2008).

Third, psychologists are involved in large-scale intervention studies of approaches to teaching reading. One example is the ambitious project in West Dunbartonshire led by educational psychologist MacKay, which aims for ‘the total eradication of illit- eracy’ in one local authority. The multiple-component study had a cross-lagged design comparing pre- and post-intervention cohorts, lasted 10 years and involved all pupils in the pre-school year in the authority, 35 primary schools and 23 nurseries, resulting in a total intervention sample of 27,244 children and control sample of 3,659, all tested individually (MacKay, 2007). Large-scale studies have also researched the

Psychology of education 595

social factors that influence reading development. An example is the Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) project, a government-funded longitudi- nal study of the effects of different kinds of pre-school experience upon children’s cognitive and social/behavioural development (Sammons et al., 2004).

Teaching thinking skills

Vygotsky’s theorising has a growing influence on psychology of learning, particu- larly his emphasis on the social context of learning and thinking. His influence has taken various forms, such as the increased attention given to social interaction processes in learning (for example, Howe et al.’s (2007) studies of group activities in science education). It has provided researchers and teachers with concepts such as zone of proximal development, scaffolding, and guided participation (Slee & Shuter, 2003) that have heuristic value. The influence is evident in educational programmes designed to teach children thinking skills explicitly, motivated by the belief that these skills are not adequately developed through the standard curricu- lum. CASE (Cognitive Acceleration for Science Education) has been developed by Adey and his associates at King’s College, London since 1982 (Adey et al., 2001). Adey’s background is in chemistry and science education but the conceptual frame- work for the project draws explicitly upon Piaget and Vygotsky. The programme, which is delivered by science teachers in science lessons set aside for the purpose, is based upon the careful arrangement of management of cognitive conflict and attaches considerable importance to social interaction in the development of cogni- tion and metacognition. CASE has been systematically evaluated over several years through quasi-experimental designs with a longitudinal dimension (see, for exam- ple, Adey et al., 2002; Adey, 2004). The success of the programme and the teaching materials designed to support it (Adey, 2008) has led to its widespread implementa- tion and to its extension to additional curriculum subjects. Other thinking skills programmes are being researched, such as ACTS (Activating Children’s Thinking Skills), currently being developed in Northern Ireland by McGuinness et al. (2007).

Our selection of case studies has focused on areas that are at the heart of the cogni- tive psychology agenda—memorising, thinking, and the processes involved in reading and learning to read. It is important to note that the cognitive paradigm has pene- trated many areas of psychology including social psychology, personality psychology, and clinical psychology. It has been applied inter alia to the study of motivation for learning (Chaplain, 1996), the self-concept (Dweck, 2003) and specific disorders, for example, autism, where teaching aids are being developed for parents and teachers of young children with autism and Asperger’s syndrome (Baron-Cohen et al., 2007).

Discussion

My examples are taken largely from one area of psychological research that has been applied to education. The emphasis has been on studies of learning and thinking from a cognitive perspective, to the neglect of important topics such as social relationships,

596 W. R. Crozier

children’s emotions and classroom behaviour. Other authors would make a different selection and no doubt would interpret differently the research I have presented. I have been biased towards intervention studies but I do not intend to imply that other kinds of research are not valuable. Much teaching and learning takes place within groups and social interactions, as illustrated in the CASE programme, and this is a key dimension that warrants consideration at greater length.

I have aimed to show that vigorous lines of research are being pursued by psychol- ogists working closely with schools. They collect fresh data in classrooms. Not all educational research is of this kind. Much is theoretical while some draws upon analysis of secondary data or upon interviews with teachers or pupils outside the classroom. Of course, psychologists are not the only researchers working within classrooms but their work represents a rich source of data that are not necessarily collected by anyone else. Researchers are welcome in busy schools only as long as schools value their contribution or see the potential for application. There is evidence that this does occur, for example in the implementation of CASE in primary and secondary schools, the expansion of thinking skills programmes, and psychologists’ contributions to teaching reading. There is increasing recognition among researchers of the importance of longitudinal designs and randomised control trials in educational research and these necessitate long-term commitment from both participating schools and researchers. They demand the formulation of worthwhile research questions, skills in research design and analysis, and serious attention to ethical issues.

My examples come from both psychology and education departments. If trends identified by Mills et al. (2006) are maintained, what would be the consequences for psychological research if the capacity of research undertaken within education depart- ments were reduced? Psychologists within education departments have a key role to play. They work alongside colleagues from other disciplines involved in educational research; awareness of how problems and issues are approached by other disciplines enriches psychological research and increases psychologists’ sensitivity to criticisms of their research and the assumptions it makes. They are also close to educational practice; they frequently have teaching qualifications and experience and their contri- butions to teacher training and teachers’ higher qualifications and professional devel- opment bring them into close contact with practitioners. This helps generate and refine research questions. It also has practical value in forging links with schools that are interested in involvement in research. Not least, psychologists within schools of education are primarily interested in education. Psychologists within psychology departments have other obligations. In a climate that places increasing emphasis on competition for external sources of research funding and where departments’ research income is related to performance in national research assessment exercises, whether these are based on peer evaluation, citation metrics or success in attracting funding, the pressure is on psychologists to pursue research that is valued by their peers and, to be maximally effective, has to meet the criterion of being regarded as ‘world leading’. The research that gains these plaudits and funding is not necessarily applied research or targeted at education.

Psychology of education 597

Education raises many moral, economic and political questions—the attention that is paid to ‘educational standards’ by politicians and the significance of education for economic development are but two indications of this. The study of a complex educa- tion system, where children are taught mostly in large classes in schools that can have thousands of pupils, is necessarily difficult, with very many variables at different levels of analysis in interaction with one another. It is unlikely that a single discipline, partic- ularly one that emphasises the individual learner, albeit within a social context, can answer educational questions on its own. Even when research seems to have potential for application there are problems of sustaining the features that have been identified as crucial for success and of disseminating the research and embedding it in practice across an education system that has competing interest groups and many ‘stakehold- ers’. A challenge for even the best research is to avoid programmes losing their impe- tus or receiving merely lip service, giving rise, perhaps, to a sense that ‘it’s Thursday at 3pm, it must be CASE’.

While psychology is only one discipline that can be brought to bear on the complexities of education, its emphasis on the study of the individual learner will, I believe, continue to have an important place in educational research. Individuals are different, and their differences cannot be reduced to variables such as social class or socio-economic factors, important as these undoubtedly are. Children within the same family are different from one another, and differences detected in the first weeks of life presage later development (Rubin et al., 2009). Research into child development is neither static nor a simple accumulation of facts. It is rich in the generation of theory, but theory that is submitted to empirical test. Psychology is regularly criticised for its individualistic bias, positivism and reductionism, but I think these criticisms do not pay sufficient attention to the role of theory in psychol- ogy, to its capacity for self-criticism, or to the range of quantitative and qualitative methods that characterise it (Crozier, 2007). It fails to acknowledge the value of test- ing hypotheses, not in the pursuit of some ‘objective truth’, but to test our under- standing: ‘If I really understand X, then I expect to find A to happen in particular circumstances, or not to find B, or to find A but not B’, and so on. If we are not putting hypotheses to the test then our claims to understanding join all the other claims about X and add little to them. Of course, what a particular hypothesis is and what counts as a test are complex matters, but dealing with that complexity is the nature of social science.

What substantive contributions can psychology make in the future? Within my area of focus—cognitive psychology of education—one can expect that significant advances in cognitive development, in neuropsychology, and in understanding the influence of the social and cultural context on development will continue. The outcomes of this research will have heuristic value for practitioners, providing concepts that aid understanding of learning and development. The case studies outlined here show that schools can benefit from high quality interventions that draw upon psychological theory and research, and this promises much for the future. Yet there are reasons not to be complacent. This research is effective only when it is sustained and involves close collaboration between researchers and practitioners;

598 W. R. Crozier

these factors are vulnerable to demographic changes. Over-reliance on research produced within psychology departments may be a problem for the reasons discussed above; and there is no guarantee that the strength of psychology depart- ments will persist in the future. There is a risk of a downward spiral in educational research where smaller capacity generates less influential research, which feeds back into further reductions in capacity. Promising developments in memory research, large-scale reading interventions, and teaching thinking programmes have to be anal- ysed (which elements of a multi-component intervention are key and which need to be strengthened?), improved, evaluated and disseminated, all of which are demand- ing of resources.

Finally, there is a need, as Norwich (2000) and Smith (2005) have argued, to develop a psychology of education that works closely with other disciplines to gener- ate original education-based research. Psychologists who have training and experi- ence of education can play an important mediating role in such developments. What are the obstacles to the interdependence of education and psychology advocated by Smith (2005)? One is the unidirectional nature of influence where there is absence of feedback from educational research. For example, research into working memory can enrich teaching but there is as yet little evidence for the application enriching psychological theory. This is surely desirable, as the learning that is required in school and in various forms of apprenticeship makes significant demands on cogni- tive, motivational and emotional processes and its study ought to contribute to the elaboration of theory. Research into CASE offers a promising example of this advancement of theory. There are methodological hurdles too. Psychology relies on statistical evidence, which may identify meaningful trends and offer support for specific theories but which may not be useful to the practitioner, who works with individual students and groups of students, not with ‘samples’. A similar issue is faced in clinical research. Cognitive psychology has provided an analysis of, for example, anxiety, which clinical researchers have drawn upon to develop therapy, testing its effectiveness by means of randomised control trials, statistical analysis, and systematic review (for example, a review by Cartwright-Hatton et al., 2004, of cogni- tive behaviour therapies applied to children’s anxiety). Nevertheless, the effective- ness of the therapy depends on the clinical skills and sensitivities of the individual therapist and on the quality of the relationship between therapist and client. There is a burgeoning research literature on this application that contributes to the effective- ness of the practice and the refinement of the cognitive theory of anxiety, and which accommodates critical analyses of practice and theory from within and outside psychology.

I have aimed to show through selected examples from one area of the discipline the contribution that psychology is making and can make to education. The changes advocated by Norwich (2000) and Smith (2005) require a robust psychol- ogy of education working closely with other disciplines and with practitioners. This is less likely to come about if crises of confidence, inadequate communica- tion between disciplines, or demographic trends reduce the capacity for such endeavours.

Psychology of education 599

Notes on contributor

Ray Crozier, PhD, is currently a Visiting Fellow at the School of Social Work and Psychology, University of East Anglia. Previously he was Professor of the Psychology of Education at Cardiff University and Professor of Psychology at the University of East Anglia. He is a Fellow of the British Psychological Society.

References

Adams, J. W. & Hitch, G. J. (1997) Working memory and children’s mental addition, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 67, 21–38.

Adey, P. (2004) Evidence for long-term effects: promises and pitfalls, Evaluation and Research in Education, 18, 83–101.

Adey, P. (Ed.) (2008) Let’s Think handbook: cognitive acceleration in the primary school (London, NFER-Nelson).

Adey, P., Robertson, A. & Venville, G. (2002) Effects of a cognitive acceleration programme on Year 1 pupils, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 1–25.

Adey, P., Shayer, M. & Yates, C. (2001) Thinking science 3rd edn. (London, Nelson Thornes). Baddeley, A. D. & Hitch, G. J. (1974) Working memory, in: G. Bower (Ed.) The psychology of

learning and motivation (New York, Academic Press), 8, 47–90. Baron-Cohen, S., Golan, O., Chapman, E. & Granader, Y. (2007) Transported to a world of

emotion, The Psychologist, 20(2), 76–77. Bradley, L. & Bryant, P. E. (1983) Categorizing sounds and learning to read: a causal connection,

Nature, 301, 419–421. Cartwright-Hatton, S., Roberts, C., Chitsabesan, P., Fothergill, C. & Harrington, R. (2004)

Systematic review of the efficacy of cognitive behaviour therapies for childhood and adoles- cent anxiety disorders, British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43, 421–436.

Chaplain, R. (1996) Making a strategic withdrawal: disengagement and self-worth protection in male pupils, in: J. Rudduck, R. Chaplain & G. Wallace (Eds) School improvement: what can pupils tell us? (London, David Fulton), 101–115.

Crozier, W. R. (2007) Capacity and methodology in university educational research: psychology of education as a case study, Higher Education Review, 39, 25–41.

Dweck, C. S. (2003) Ability conceptions, motivation and development, in: L. Smith, C. Rogers & P. Tomlinson (Eds) Development and motivation: joint perspectives, British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II, 2, 13–27.

Gathercole, S. E. & Alloway, T. P. (2008) Working memory and learning: a practical guide (London, Sage).

Gathercole, S. E., Lamont, E. & Alloway, T. P. (2006) Working memory in the classroom, in: S. Pickering (Ed.) Working memory and education (London, Academic Press), 219–240.

Goswami, U. (2008a) Reading, complexity and the brain, Literacy, 42, 67–74. Goswami, U. (2008b) Neuroscience and education: from research to practice, Nature Reviews

Neuroscience, 7, 406–413. Goswami, U. & Bryant, P. (2007) Children’s cognitive development and learning: Primary Review

Research Survey 2/1a (Cambridge, University of Cambridge Faculty of Education). Gough, P. B. (1972) One second of reading, in: J. Kavanaugh & I. Mattingley (Eds) Language by

ear and by eye (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press), 331–358. Hall, J. (2008) Mental deficiency – changing the outlook, The Psychologist, 21(11), 1006–1007. Hallam, S. (2002) Ability grouping in schools (London, Institute of Education University of

London). HERO (2002) RAE 2001. Available online at http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/index.htm (accessed 4

February 2009).

600 W. R. Crozier

Howe, C., Tolmie, A., Thurston, A., Topping, K., Christie, D., Livingston, K., Jessiman, E. & Donaldson, S. (2007) Group work in elementary science: towards organisational principles for supporting pupil learning, Learning and Instruction, 17, 549–563.

Huey, E. (1908 [1968 edn.]) The psychology and pedagogy of reading (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press). Hulme, C. & Mackenzie, S. (1992) Working memory and severe learning difficulties (Hove, Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates). Kirby, J. R. & Savage, R. S. (2008) Can the simple view deal with the complexities of reading?

Literacy, 42, 75–82. Mackay, T. (2007) Achieving the vision. The final research report of the West Dunbartonshire Literacy

Initiative (Dumbarton, West Dunbartonshire Council). McGuinness, C., Eakin, A., Curry, C., Sheehy, N. & Bunting, B. (2007) Building thinking skills in

thinking classrooms: ACTS in Northern Ireland. Paper presented at the 13th International Conference on Thinking, Norrköping, Sweden. Available online at http://www.ep.liu.se/eco/ 021/vol1/ (accessed 1 December 2008).

Mills, D., Jepson, A., Coxon, T., Easterby-Smith, M., Hawkins, P. & Spencer, J. (2006) Demographic review of the UK social sciences (Swindon, ESRC). Available online at http://www. esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/Demographic_Review_tcm6-13872.pdf (accessed 1 December, 2008).

Nation, K. (2005) The connections between language and reading in children with poor reading comprehension, in: H. W. Catts & A. Kahmi (Eds) The connections between language and read- ing disabilities (Mahwah, NJ, LEA), 41–53.

National Educational Research Forum (2000) Building research capacity: sub-group report (London, National Educational Research Forum).

Norgate, S. & Ginsborg, J. (2006) A survey of postdoctoral researchers and final-year PhD students in psychology: research funding, career needs and working conditions (Leicester, British Psychological Society).

Norwich, B. (2000) Education and psychology in interaction: working with uncertainty in interconnect- ing systems (London, Routledge).

Rose, J. (2006) Independent review of the teaching of early reading (Nottingham, DfES Publications). Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R. J. & Bowker, J. C. (2009) Social withdrawal in childhood, Annual

Review of Psychology, 60, 141–171. Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., Elliot, K. & Marsh, A.

(2004) The continuing effects of pre-school education at age 7 years. Technical Paper 11 (London, Institute of Education, University of London).

Slee, P. & Shuter, R. (2003) Child development: thinking about theories (London, Arnold). Smith, L. (2005) Education, in: B. Hopkins, R. G. Barr, G. F. Michel & P. Rochat (Eds) The

Cambridge encyclopedia of child development (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press), 487–490. Stuart, M., Stainthorp, R. & Snowling, M. (2008) Literacy as a complex activity: deconstructing

the simple view of reading, Literacy, 42, 59–66. Thomas, J. B. (1996) The beginnings of educational psychology in the universities of England and

Wales, Educational Psychology, 16, 229–244. Wolf, M. (2008) Proust and the squid: the story and science of the reading brain (Cambridge, Icon

Books). Wyse, D. & Goswami, U. (2008) Synthetic phonics and the teaching of reading, British Educational

Research Journal, 34, 691–710.