(Cover image by Mario Ohibsky from Pixabay.)

by Cindy Nebel

Random person at airport: So what do you do?
Me: I’m a psychologist.
Person: Oh! Don’t analyze me! But wait, let me tell you about my aunt who has [fill in mental disorder here]!
Me: I’m not that kind of psychologist. I study memory.
Person: Oh, my mom has Alzheimer’s.
Me: I mean, I study how to help people learn and remember in school.
Person: So you’re a teacher?
Me: I… um… Oh shoot I’m getting a phone call, better run. Have a nice flight!

It’s a pretty common conversation. And I’ve had colleagues talk about how they handle it – maybe they just say they’re university professors or cognitive scientists, avoiding the word ‘psychology’ altogether. Regardless, it’s very clear that the average person does not have a great understanding of the broad field of psychology nor the interdisciplinary nature of the Science of Learning. Recently, I’ve seen posts denying that such a science exists and that, instead, those of us talking about the science of learning are simply trying to sell something or deny falsifiability – that by putting “science” in the name, no one can argue with us.

I wanted to take some time this week to explain several of these concepts. What is the science of learning? How are we, four cognitive psychologists, involved in it? And when and how do you know if you can “trust” the science?

A Short Introduction to the Field of Psychology

Psychology is, in short, the study of the mind and behavior (1). While often associated with mental health and treatment of mental disorders, that field – clinical psychology – is only one branch of a much broader field. Because there are so many influences on humans and because we vary so much, psychologists specialize in their type of study. These different types might include the study of personality or social groups, how biology influences the mind and behavior, how we develop across the lifespan, and how we learn and remember. Psychologists also study the mind and behavior in many different contexts, such as the workplace, across different cultures, or in schools. You can visit the American Psychological Association webpage to learn more about these different subfields.

Here at the Learning Scientists, we have training in Cognitive Psychology – the study of memory, attention, perception, and thinking (although we are also interested in how many of those things above influence cognition). In the field of cognitive psychology, researchers conduct experiments and other studies through what we like to call the lab to classroom model. We’ve talked about this before, but as a quick review, researchers start with very basic materials so that we have a lot of control and can understand how a process works (e.g. we want to see how someone learns when they have no prior knowledge so we give them random letters to memorize). The field then slowly builds up using more applied materials like textbook passages or video lectures until we’re studying actual classrooms. Cognitive psychologists often find out that things we didn’t account for in the lab matter quite a lot in the real world, so we go back and study those things in the lab. For example, maybe in a real classroom there are posters lining the walls and we didn’t measure how those posters might influence learning in the lab, so we do an experiment using more basic materials, but we include some distractions around the room with different types of pictures, colors, and words on them. In this way, we can isolate one variable at a time to see how it influences learning.

The Science of Learning

This is where the “science” part of the science of learning comes in. Through the rigorous study methods described above (and previously), cognitive psychologists get a pretty good understanding of how learning and memory work both in terms of basic mechanisms that can be isolated in a lab and in real classrooms with real learners.

But we are not the only ones doing this work. The science of learning is a multi-disciplinary field. And admittedly, there isn’t one specific definition. In fact, in a review of 50 papers on the science of learning, they found 43 unique definitions (2)! However, after reviewing those definitions, they developed a new definition for the science of learning: the “scientific study of the underlying bases of learning with the goal of describing, understanding, or improving learning across developmental stages and diverse contexts” (p. 13).

The authors note that this is distinct from the learning sciences (although the Science of Learning is often used interchangeably). The learning sciences focus specifically on “investigat[ing] teaching and learning as well as the design and development of learning environments, with the goal to improve the effectiveness of education and training.” (p. 13). Given these two distinct definitions, I would argue that we are operating somewhere between the two. We use the Science of Learning (the scientific study of underlying bases) to inform the learning sciences (the design of learning environments to improve the effectiveness of education)!

It’s ok if you’re confused. We are at the beginning stages of a new applied field: The Science of Learning. We are working out the exact definitions. We are figuring out how this field is similar and different than those it has branched from. And you are a part of it. Isn’t that exciting?

And you really are a necessary part of this work. The Science of Learning is about research, but that research can only move forward if we are able to understand the unique limitations with learners from different backgrounds, different materials, and different contexts. We need to know what works and what doesn’t so we can take it back to the lab and understand why. Understanding the underlying mechanisms allows us to better predict what strategy will be helpful when and for whom.

The art of teaching is taking the science and applying it in a way that makes sense. Throwing away the entire science because we don’t understand everything yet is akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Please, save the baby (and the science).

Bottom Line

My hope is that this explanation helps you to see a bit of the behind-the-scenes work, to better understand where you, cognitive psychology, and science really sit in this fuzzy Science of Learning.

Because there is no one definition, it is very possible that people are using the Science of Learning to mean something… less scientific. Continue to be skeptical. Continue to ask about the research that supports the program you’re being asked to implement. But also, don’t assume that someone who is using science is trying to sell you something. (Here’s a great resource for help with this task.)

I can say very confidently that, at least for the four of us here, we are volunteering our time because we want to help improve educational outcomes.

 References:

(1)    https://dictionary.apa.org/psychology

(2)    Privitera, A. J., Ng, S. H. S., & Chen, S. H. A. (2023). Defining the Science of Learning: A scoping review. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 100206.