Research, evidence and education policy

Recent education policy such as the mobile phone ban, structured literacy mandate, the one-hour a day “back to basics” approach, and a more “knowledge-rich” curriculum have all been enacted to combat declining achievement. These policies claim to draw on the “science of learning” and are promising to lift achievement rates by implementing effective, universal teaching methods.

Read the latest print edition of School News HERE

Conversely, progressive educators call for an “evidence-based approach” to education that is bipartisan, and say that recent policy changes, in some ways, go against the evidence. 

So what is the difference between using the “science of learning” and an “evidence-based approach” to inform policy – is there one?

The purpose of policy 

Education, and by extension education policy, often reflects questions of national values and identity. Aotearoa New Zealand is no exception. Much of our current discourse around education points to an anxiety about New Zealand’s social and economic future. Reports of declining achievement are often framed with corresponding projections of declining GDP and productivity. 

Cathy Wylie, emeritus chief researcher at the New Zealand Council for Educational Research (NZCER) notes that in Aotearoa New Zealand, education policy is about ensuring the quality of our education system, and by extension, the quality of the citizens it produces.

“We’ve got a free public education system, and we want it to meet the needs of every student who goes through. We want it to be good quality, and we want it to provide children and young people with what they need to contribute well to this country. 

“It’s about growing [children] as individuals, but it’s also about ensuring their future and a viable society and economy in this country. That’s a very big overarching aim, and research along the way has shown that it hasn’t always met that aim.” 

What is the “science of learning?” 

The “science of learning,” is an area of research about the neurocognitive and psychological mechanisms of learning. According to The Education Hub, “while there is a focus on the cognitive processes involved in learning, the science of learning also recognises that cognition is affected by affective, emotional and contextual factors”. 

The science of learning is therefore concerned with understanding how humans learn. It draws on our understanding of neurological processes such as cognitive load and memory and how they relate to learning. 

Understanding these processes can inform teaching strategies to promote learning. Educators note that there is more than one dimension and more than one science of learning. Using the definite article, then, can be a misnomer.

What is an “evidence-based approach?” 

Broadly defined, an “evidence-based approach” means using bodies of research and knowledge to inform policy and practice. Drawing on the science of learning to inform policy is therefore an evidence-based approach, but it’s not the only one.

Using evidence to inform policy can quickly become complex. As Sir Peter Gluckman wrote in the foreword to his 2011 discussion paper, Towards better use of evidence in policy formation:

“The challenges are multiple: to identify what research and information is needed, to identify appropriate sources of such knowledge, to interpret the validity, quality and relevance of knowledge obtained, and to understand how that knowledge can improve consideration of policy options and policy formation while being cognisant of the changing nature of science and the increasingly complex interaction between science and policy formation.”

As Gluckman notes, the kind of evidence used to inform policy, and how it’s employed, are paramount. Not all evidence is relevant or useful, and without critical examination of these aspects, there is still the risk of forming ineffective, or even harmful policy despite being informed by “evidence”. 

Good evidence, bad policy?

On both sides of the education debate in New Zealand, there is an agreement that we need to lift national achievement levels. The argument then, is how.

During her announcement of the coalition government’s education priorities, Education Minister Erica Stanford said that she wanted a new, explicit curriculum “grounded in the science of learning.” Educators seemed to understand this meant a more prescriptive curriculum, especially as Stanford followed up with the announcement to mandate structured literacy methods in schools.

Current educational policy seems to be focused on standardising teaching methods to the current scientifically informed model of best practice. That means the phrase “science of learning” has largely become shorthand for a particular teaching methodology.1

At the forefront of recent education policy changes is Dr Michael Johnston, a cognitive psychologist and senior researcher at the right-wing think-tank the New Zealand Institute (NZI). He is now the head of the Curriculum Refresh Ministerial Advisory Group, appointed shortly after Education Minister Erica Stanford stepped up to her role. 

In an analysis by Newsroom’s Laura Walters, education experts said that Johnston’s focus on science excluded the context and reality of teaching in a classroom.2

In Gluckman’s discussion paper, he wrote that “It is also important to note that there are limits to scientific knowledge and to the scientific approach… science can be misused to justify decisions that should legitimately be made on the basis of other considerations.”

Progressives, then, argue that a policy focused solely on the science of teaching methods will not result in the desired outcome of lifting student achievement. 

But if not teaching methods, then what evidence should policymakers pay attention to? 

Prominent education leaders often point to the wealth of evidence that shows positive teacher-student relationships, social environment, a sense of belonging, strong leadership, and professional development to be the key drivers of student achievement. They argue that policy should focus on the school system, not on teaching and learning itself.

There’s therefore been a sustained criticism of the government’s narrow focus on knowledge and teaching at the expense of system-wide changes like creating different funding models for professional learning and development and building stronger support networks for schools.

In an opinion piece for The Post, Bali Haque, previous chair of the Tomorrow’s Schools Independent Taskforce, noted that achievement is dependent on a student’s school context, and identified a need for increased collaboration and an improvement in governance, leadership and accountability structures in the education system.3

In a press release, NZEI Te Riu Roa president Mark Potter said although certain teaching methods do have evidence behind them, “the research also shows that personalising and differentiating learning to meet the diversity of children we have in our classrooms is the key… Teaching is an art and a craft, not just a science. A teacher knows what teaching approach will work the best for the variety of learners in their classroom. Mandating a one-size-fits-all to curriculum does not work.”

Progressives, then, argue that policy which targets broader systemic factors such as context, environment and resourcing are more salient and effective for lifting student outcomes. In fact, recent research has even shown that policy settings encouraging specific teaching techniques based on the “science of learning” fail to achieve the desired outcomes.4

Hidden ideologies 

When asked about the ideology behind recent education policy, Dr Michael Johnston replied: “I try not to take an ideological approach; I try to take a scientific one.”2

Johnston’s statement positions science and evidence in opposition to ideology, yet critics point out that this is a misdirection. Recent education policy is underpinned by certain values that could be characterised as an ideology, and the evidence that is used to underpin it is also driven by values: what sort of ‘evidence’ do we privilege, and what other knowledge systems do we erase when we do so? 

As Jenny Ritchie, SENCO and Deputy Principal of Te Kōmanawa Rowley School pointed out during a recent panel with Aotearoa Educators’ Collective:

“The phrases ‘evidence based’ or ‘the’ science of learning are becoming gospel that discourages disclosure of critical analysis of the sources and agendas behind this particular evidence or science.5

“’Evidence’ is being used as a trojan justification for ideological stances that are not informed by relevant local research.” 

Designing good policy 

It’s clear then, that being “evidence-based” is not an automatic qualifier for producing good policy. 

The problem arises when resourcing and funds go towards programmes that produce easily quantifiable results and promise blanket solutions for everyone. Through these policies, qualitative evidence and nuanced approaches are sidelined. Additionally, the rhetoric of a one-size-fits-all approach is not equitable, and does not result in equitable outcomes. 

Wylie notes that in education research, there’s been a move away from randomised control trials, which is held up in other fields as the gold standard. That’s because contextual factors are critical to outcomes and results are not easily replicated in educational research, calling into question the validity of such approaches. 

“People have moved away from the idea that research can produce a simple recipe or policy. You can sketch a policy broadly, but it’s not going to be the answer in every classroom in the country or every school.” 

Instead, research and improvement cycles are now becoming the ideal model, says Wylie. And that research needs to be well designed and well-funded to continue making a difference. Rather than a static figure or a simple solution, educational research should be in conversation with policies, says Wylie. 

“It’s not a case that research just simply lands on a solution… there’s got to be an interplay, some fertile ground.”

References
1Horvath, Jared Cooney. May 2024.“Why you’re probably wrong about the science of learning”. TES Magazine. https://www.tes.com/magazine/teaching-learning/general/why-youre-probably-wrong-about-science-learning 
2Walters, Laura. May 2024. “Meet the man behind the Government’s education policy.” Newsroom. https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/05/08/meet-the-man-behind-the-governments-education-policy/ 
3Haque, Bali. Janrary 2024. “Why the silver bullets flying around education will miss the target.” The Post. https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/350159546/why-silver-bullets-flying-around-education-will-miss-target 
4Riordan, Sally. April 2024. “Schools are using research to try and improve children’s learning – but it’s not working.” The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/schools-are-using-research-to-try-to-improve-childrens-learning-but-its-not-working-226348 
5Aotearoa Educators’ Collective. July 2024. Panel: “Beyond the Basics: Equipping Learners for the Future.” Accessed from YouTube July 2024: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pi36_sotiM0