Effects of a Cognitive Acceleration Programme on Year 1 Pupils (Updated)

Page 1

Research topic: thinking skills

Effects of a Cognitive Acceleration Programme on Year 1 pupils (Updated)

Philip Adey, King’s College London

Anne Robertson, London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

Grady Venville, King’s College London

British Journal of Educational Psychology (2002), Vol. 72, pp. 1-25

Can teachers actually improve the thinking skills of young children?

Many recent studies have shown that teachers can affect the way in which their pupils’ thinking develops. Philip Adey, Michael Shayer and other researchers, in earlier cognitive intervention programmes, had aimed to accelerate the development of thinking processes for children in Years 7 and 8. In the study summarised here the authors wanted to find out if a similar approach could be taken with children as young as 5 and 6. The authors designed and investigated the effect of a cognitive intervention programme on the development of thinking skills of 338 children in Year 1 in 10 primary schools in a socially deprived area of the London borough of Fulham and Hammersmith. The research was supported by the LEA in that area. The findings showed that such a programme could indeed be successful. The authors hope that the programme will bring beneficial long-term effects to pupils’ academic development which in turn will influence positively their social development, and eventually their employment prospects. Whilst this paper reported initial findings, further reports are planned.

Keywords

UK; United Kingdom; England; teaching and learning; primary schools; gender; mixed sex; cognitive development; pupils; classroom teaching; pedagogy; thinking skills

Page 2

Contents

What did the research show?(click to page3)

What is cognitive intervention all about?(click to page 4)

How was the research designed?(click to page 5)

What were the main components of the programme?(click to page 6)

What were the characteristic features of the activities used in the project? (click to page 7)

What happened in a classroom activity?(click to page 8)

How did the pupils benefit?(click to page 9)

How were the teachers prepared for the intervention?(click to page10)

Which tests were used on the pupils?(click to page11)

Implications(click to page12)

Where can I find out more?(click to page13)

Page 3

What did the research show?

From statistical analysis of the results of tests on the children, the authors found that:

• overall the experimental group made significantly greater gains in cognitive development over the period of the study than the control group;
• while boys made gains, they were not as great as those made by girls;
• cognitive gain did not seem to be related to pupils’ linguistic or numeric abilities; and
• cognitive gain did not correlate with age of entry, receipt of free school meals or ethnic group.

The analysis was based on the gains made by each child in scores on pre- and post-tests of cognitive development. The authors were careful to assess the possible effects of variables other than the intervention itself. They did this partly by the use of baseline testing for language and number and partly by examining social and demographic pupil data. Click here for more information on how the results were analysed. (clickto How was the research designed page 5)

Of particular interest to the researchers was the possibility of a teacher effect, beyond that of the intervention itself. The researchers wished to demonstrate that the intervention could be effective in the hands of a high proportion of the teachers who have been introduced to it. If the effects were confined to only three or four of the fourteen teachers the results would not be convincing. Detailed analysis showed that the gains were not limited to just a few teachers and the benefit to the pupils is also discussed later in this digest. (click to How did the pupil’s benefit page 9)

Page 4

What is cognitive intervention all about?

Like its precursors, the Cognitive Acceleration through Science Education (CASE) and Cognitive Acceleration through Mathematics (CAME) projects, the intervention in this study was based on the assumptions that:

• there is some general intellectual function in children which is context-independent;
• this function develops through the interaction of maturation and environmental conditions; and
• children’s intelligence is sufficiently flexible to be amenable to change by a well-designed intervention programme.

Whilst the first two assumptions were supported by the work of other educationalists and psychologists, and the results of the first CASE programme itself, the third assumption has been continuously strengthened by results from further CASE programmes.

To find out more about CASE, see Where can I find out more?(click to page 13). You can also visit ‘Improving learning through cognitive intervention’ where you will find a summary of the CASE project.

The first part of the intervention involves ‘concrete preparation’. This is the stage in which the scene is set and the situation is explained to the children. They are shown the apparatus and how it is used and unfamiliar words and phrases are introduced to them.

This preliminary step is followed by the four main elements of the cognitive intervention strategy:

‘Cognitive’ conflict (Cognitive Challenge)

The teacher presents the pupils with a situation which they cannot tackle with their existing cognitive structure. This is the first stage of the intervention activities. It is described as cognitive conflict, which is usually taken to mean cognitive challenge.

Social construction

This is a social activity in which the children are encouraged to discuss the problem with one another, to try to solve it together. The teacher’s role is to mediate while the pupils construct the knowledge and understanding.

Metacognition

In their work the authors define metacognition as the conscious reflection by a child on his or her own thinking processes, often (but not always) after he or she has worked through a given problem. In this way the pupils become aware of their own reasoning, and the thinking process becomes explicit.

Schema theory

In order to develop cognitive development processes, the researchers use a set of ‘schema’ on which to build the classroom activities. This concept comes from the ideas of Piaget and co-workers in Geneva who defined schema as general ways of thinking which underpin all rational thought. The schema used by the authors for their work with 5 and 6 year olds included:

• putting things in order according to specific variables;
• classifying things; and
• spatial perception.

Page 5

How was the research designed?

The intervention was structured to test the main hypothesis that it was possible to accelerate the cognitive development of young children through an intervention program. The authors used a quasi-experimental design containing the following features:

• pre-tests of cognitive development carried out near the start of the school year, i.e. just before the intervention started;
• a cognitive acceleration programme implemented in 14 classes in 10 schools;
• a control group of 206 children and 8 teachers; and
• a post-test of cognitive development carried out after the intervention and near the end of the school year.

All Year 1 children in ten experimental and five control schools were tested. As far as possible the researchers designed the programme so that the populations in the two groups were similar with regard to demographic and social background as measured by free school meals. Whilst they also made every effort to ensure the two groups were similar in ethnicity also, the control group contained proportionately more White and fewer Black Caribbean or Black African.

Baseline testing also allowed the researchers to compare the starting level of achievement of each group as judged by their teachers. The researchers were satisfied that there was no difference between intervention and control schools.

It was the authors’ intention to test further the impact of the intervention when the study population are assessed in the national tests at the end of Key Stage 2.

Page 6

What were the main components of the programme?

The intervention consisted of a series of activities aimed at presenting cognitive challenge to 5 and 6 year old children. A key feature of the process was that it should provide opportunities for children to engage in discussing and tackling problems together (social construction), and in explaining their

thinking (metacognition). (Click here for an explanation of these terms.(click to What is cognitive intervention all about? page 4)). The main features of the programme were that:

• there were 3 introductory ‘listening’ activities;
• there were 26 cognitive acceleration activities;
• each activity took about 30 – 40 minutes; and
• six children undertook the activity each day, so that a whole class of thirty were covered by the end of the week;

Initially, ‘listening’ activities were introduced to familiarise the children with the working methods of the activities. Special emphasis was placed on listening to others, respecting others’ views, being able to participate in debate constructively, and so on.

Page 7

What were the characteristic features of the activities used in the project?

The cognitive intervention activities were structured on the following schema (Click here for an explanation of these terms (click to What is cognitive intervention all about? page 4)):

• seriation (putting things in order according to some quantity eg length, height, etc) (click on page 8 for a detailed example of a seriation activity);
• classifying shapes, animals etc;
• putting actions into a time sequence;
• spatial perception; and
• causality.

In one classification activity described by the authors, a collection of dinosaurs was introduced and the children sorted them by single variables such as colour or type. The teacher then asked the children to put all the T. Rex dinosaurs in one hoop and all the blue ones in another. Conflict arose over the blue T. Rex, which the children resolved by constructing the idea of overlapping the hoops.

Another activity about spatial perception involved children being seated in pairs around three sides of a table. On the table there was a model of a crossroads with various features such as buildings, vehicles, bus shelters and so on. The children were seated so that no pair could see all the features. The children selected from a set of pictures, firstly, the one that represented what they could see and then another showing what they thought another pair of children might be able to see.

One other schema, the conservation of quantities of liquids and solids was left out of the learning activities. The authors explained that this was to provide the researchers with an opportunity to measure the extent to which thinking skills developed in the main activities were transferable into a situation requiring different thinking skills. Since conservation was one of the pre- and post-tests the absence of intervention activities related to conservation would allow any change in general cognitive development in that area to be assessed distinct from direct learning effects resulting from the activities.

Page 8

What happened in a classroom activity?

The authors explained the pattern which each activity followed. There was an initial ‘concrete preparation’ in which the situation, apparatus, and any unfamiliar words and phrases were introduced. Next, there was a phase of cognitive challenge in which the problem was presented. The difficulties became apparent at this stage as attempts were made to find a solution. All the pupils were engaged in constructing a new understanding. Metacognition may occur at this stage but it often follows the activity when pupils articulate what they did to solve the problem. Finally, there was a bridging phase when the teacher presented other situations for the pupils to apply the schema to.

(Click here for an explanation of the words used in this paragraph (click to What is cognitive intervention all about? page 4).)

The authors provided a detailed description to illustrate what went on during an activity. It began with the concrete preparation stage:

• the teacher placed a stick on the table and the 6 pupils and the teacher then discussed what to call it.;
• the teacher produced a second stick, and introduced the phrases ‘longer than’ and ‘shorter than’ which the children then practised; and
• the teacher then placed a third stick on table so that pupils developed the idea that a stick may be shorter than and longer than at the same time.

There then followed the stage of conflict/construction:

• the teacher produced ten sticks of different lengths;
• the pupils had to place them in order from longest to shortest. This involved prompting by the teacher to ensure that all participated and that they explained and justified their actions to each other; and
• once the order had been agreed the teacher gave out sticks of intermediate length to each child and the pupils had to site them correctly between the other sticks, with the pupils again explaining their strategies.

A metacognitive stage followed in which pupils reflected on how they tackled the tasks, what they found difficult and how they overcame the difficulties.

Finally, the teacher asked questions designed to encourage ‘bridging’ in which the children apply the reasoning they used to put things in order in a new situation.

Page 9

How did the pupils benefit?

The outcome data showed that

• on the conservation test pupils in the intervention classes made an average gain of 2.02 units compared to 1.06 for pupils in the control groups; and
• on the drawing test the average gain for pupils in the intervention classes was 6.40 units compared to 3.77 for pupils in the control classes.

(Click here for an explanation of these two types of test (click to What tests were used on the pupils? page 11).)

The difference in gains made by the pupils in the intervention classes compared to those in the control classes were 0.956 (effect size 0.43) and 2.636 (effect size 0.47) for the conservation and drawing tests respectively. The gains made by the intervention groups on the conservation test were particularly significant, in the authors’ view, because there were no activities in the intervention programme relating to conservation. The authors regarded this figure as providing evidence of transfer.

Although the overall gain made by the intervention children was significantly higher than that of the control groups, there were signs of a gender effect. For example, on the conservation test the differences in gain between intervention classes and control classes were 1.30 for girls and 1.18 for boys.

(To find out more about gender differences in achievements of boys and girls click to and follow the link to ‘An Investigation into Gender Differences in Achievement’)

Five out of fourteen CA classes scored higher than any of the seven control classes on the conservation test, while seven CA classes achieved higher than any control class on the drawing test. The authors concluded from this finding that there was no ‘special teacher’ effect and that the gains arose through the intervention programme (the activities and the professional development programme) itself.

Page 10

How were the teachers prepared for the intervention?

A central requirement of the programme was that teachers had a good understanding of the theory and practice of cognitive acceleration activities. The authors considered that the implementation of cognitive acceleration depends critically on effective pedagogy and so believed that professional development is always required.

All the teachers received training which incorporated the following elements:

• a six-day course of in-service training; and
• three or four visits to their schools for coaching by members of the research team.

The programme was designed to give teachers plenty of practice in the critical areas of generating cognitive challenge and encouraging social construction and metacognition. The coaches all had extensive experience of working with practising teachers in this field and used the method of cognitive acceleration itself to develop the staff.

Page 11

Which tests were used on the pupils?

Two sets of tests were used to measure cognitive development, Conservation and Drawing (spatial perception). They were applied at both the pre- and post- test stages.

The first test contained items about the conservation of number, quantities of liquids and solids, and weight. It was carried out by members of the research team, and by specially trained assistants. Because of the number of children involved (over 500), a one-third stratified sample of children was chosen for the test. In other words, to achieve a sample which was nearly representative of the population, the researchers selected children from the high, low and mid-range strata of the baseline scores. They also tried to balance the gender composition of the sample.