The lack of a reliable evidence base for educational practice is also raised by Fischer et al. (2010). Like the EBTN, they draw attention to the lack of
engagement with research in education, when compared to the importance placed on research in medicine and other fields, from meteorology to business. They call for more emphasis on research schools, building on Dewey’s vision of laboratory schools but they also recognise the differing assumptions about research evident in medicine and education. Writing with Hinton (2008), Fischer advised that ’dynamic’ and ‘reciprocal interaction’ (p.158) between learning research and practice is required for what is referred to in this article as mind, brain and education. This is now embodied in the title of the International Mind, Brain and Education Society (IMBES). Amongst the benefits of research schools, Hinton and Fischer believe, is the opportunity for educators to influence the direction of research. Though not drawn from a research school context, Geake (2009) and Goswami (2008) have
demonstrated that many teachers have extensive ideas about areas of focus for neuroeducational research. Geake categorised 57 examples of such suggestions under the headings cognition of learning, environment of learning, curriculum and school organisation.
Though collaboration based in research schools is clearly desirable, the concept brings its own problems and challenges. Kuriloff et al. (2009) examine the experiences of school and university collaborations in neuroeducational research. Difficulties have included disagreement over research areas and priorities, time constraints, gender stereotyping (where analysis through other groupings might be more insightful), resistance where findings contradict teachers’ perceptions or strongly challenge the status quo and anxieties about data that participating schools sometimes perceive as potentially damaging. In examining Mind, Brain and Education as the birth of a new field, Schwartz and Gerlach (2011) add complex ethical questions raised by the use of new technology or the possibility of ‘experimental interventions providing ‘preferential’ treatment to some students over others’ (p. 71). Both Kuriloff and colleagues and Schwartz and Gerlach offer possible solutions. Kuriloff et al. propose the democratic training model Participatory Action Research (PAR), which includes key features of their description of a shared vision built on trusting relationships and agreed standards for rigorous
research that promotes the use of appropriate tools of assessment. Schwartz and Gerlach identify vision, relationship, research and assessment as four objectives that are fundamental to the future success of the Research Schools Network. Katzir and Paré-Blagoev (2006) declare that productive collaboration needs to meet two essential conditions: collaborations should be ‘guided by the goal of fostering interprofessional interactions that enhance the practice of each discipline’ (my italics) and they should also ‘be based on mutual
understanding and respect for the actual and potential contributions of the disciplines’ (p.7). Anderson and Della Sala (2011) caution that ‘the ‘interaction’
of neuroscientists and teachers (is) ‘nearly always constituted by the former patronising the latter’ (p.3).
There are examples of research networks in the UK in line with the model of a university in collaboration with one or several schools, as described by Hinton and Fischer (2008) in the case of the Harvard Graduate School of Education and the Ross Independent School, or the example of the University of
Pennsylvania’s partnership with nine schools, as described by Kuriloff et al. (2009). A notable example in the UK is the collaborative work between the Centre for Educational Neuroscience (in itself a collaboration of The Institute of Education (now a constituent part of University College, London), Birkbeck College and the research hub at Swiss Cottage School. It is perhaps
significant that Swiss Cottage School is a well-established and highly regarded special school, though some of the research work in which it is involved finds some dissemination amongst its mainstream partner schools. A number of other universities possess neuroscience teams who work with schools. The work of Paul Howard-Jones and colleagues at the University of Bristol has included research in schools on the significance of the biochemical dopamine and the reward circuitry of the brain for learning activities
capitalising on the popularity of what he calls ‘immersive’ gaming (Howard- Jones and Fenton, 2010). However, there is considerable caution about application of neuroscientific findings amongst the UK’s neuroscientific community and a preference for considering implications for the future
(Goswami, 2008, Stewart and Williamon, 2008, TLRP, n.d.). More recently, a number of educational neuroscience projects that involve university/school
setting collaborations have been funded jointly by The Wellcome Trust and The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF). This funding was announced in October 2014, for the following projects:
Fit to Study: an investigation of correlations between cardiovascular activity and academic achievement, explored through the use of brain imaging and led by Professor Heidi Johansen-Berg of the University of Oxford.
Spaced Learning: described as a ‘trial on the effectiveness of repetition and spaced learning, a method of teaching that delivers a unit of work multiple times interspersed with alternative activities’. This is a collaboration between the Hallam Teaching Alliance and Stocksbridge High School.
Learning Counterintuitive Concepts: under the leadership of Professor Denis Mareschal, this study explores the impact of training students to suspend their existing scientific and mathematical beliefs.
GraphoGame Rime: well-known neuroscientist Professor Usha Goswami is leading this exploration of the use of the GraphoGame Rime computer game to deploy ‘rhyme analogy’ for the development of phonological awareness in learning to read.
Engaging the Brain’s Reward System: Professor Paul Howard-Jones is a noted expert in this field and leads this investigation of the impact of chance rewards as a means of engaging learners.
Teen Sleep: Taking as its starting point research into the efficacy of later school start times for teenagers, Professors Colin Espie and Russell Foster of
the University of Oxford will investigate the impact of sleep education and later start times. Non-invasive bio-telemetric devices will be employed to gather physiological data.
Via the Wellcome Trust, at the time of the announcement of the funding (9.10.14), schools were invited to apply to participate in the projects.The projects themselves all have a basis in existing, ongoing research and in that sense break no new ground, but they do represent a step towards
collaboration, along with significant funding to enable this to happen.
Returning to Fischer et al.’s concern (op.cit) that schools do not engage with research, there is now a number of UK schools that have appointed a member of staff with responsibility for the examination and distribution of research and there is a growing call in UK schools for clear, accessible evidence for
promoted developments in pedagogy. This may not yet be as participatory as Fischer and his colleagues would wish to see but is at least a step in the right direction. In October 2016 The Research Schools Network, a project in
England funded by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) and the Institute for Effective Education (IEE), announced the first six successful applicants for research school status. In April 2017 another five schools gained this status. The Research Schools Network website claims that the schools ‘will break down barriers between teachers and academics’. Sir Kevan Collins of the EEF states that this is ‘so that research doesn’t stay in the
pages of academic journals’. In both cases, the choice of words clearly raises concerns about the application of some educational research. In a more placatory tone, Professor Bette Chambers of the IEE refers to ‘the
commitment and enthusiasm of the first five research schools to using research evidence to enhance teaching and learning’
(http.wwwresearchschool.org.uk). At this stage, it is not clear to what extent neuroscience may figure in the efforts of the research schools. It is also notable that the focus of the project appears to be the use of evidence from research rather than primary involvement in the research itself.
The research work of the independent Queen Anne’s School in Reading, England, is notable for a number of reasons, particularly in that it has taken initiative in inviting researchers at two universities to collaborate with the school to pursue a brain-related research agenda set by the school, under the banner of its BrainCanDo project. As well as journal articles reporting on the findings of these projects the school has produced the BrainCanDo Teacher Handbook (2018) a guide to the use of information about the brain for
pedagogical purposes. This is a readable 42-page guide, containing enough neuroscientific information to be informative and to substantiate the book’s suggestions, without straying into what some teachers would consider
scientific overload. I use the word ‘suggestions’ purposefully, since this is the approach the book takes; there are no prescriptive strategies but instead invitations to ‘give it a go’ that leave the finer details to the teacher and are relevant across the curriculum. Staff at the school are encouraged to share their evaluations of these trials and some have written about them for
publication (Beale, 2018; Little, 2018; McNeil, 2018; Müllensiefen et al., 2018). The school has also used educational neuroscience as a perspective through
which to evaluate what it perceives as longstanding good practice amongst its staff.