Cognitive acceleration

Cognitive acceleration describes an intervention programme originally developed by Michael Shayer and Philip Adey at King's College London which is designed to boost learner's thinking. The recently accepted umbrella title for this programme and the new packages for all core subjects in primary and secondary education cited below is Let's Think (LT).

The first series used a secondary science context: CASE (Cognitive Acceleration through Science Education). Students experienced Cognitive Acceleration lessons that replaced some of their normal sciences lessons. The outcomes from the intervention were tested against a similar "control" group that were taught their usual science lessons instead.

Compared to the control group, the CASE learners not only scored about one grade better in their GCSE science, but their Maths and English GCSE grades were also improved by about the same amount. It is very rare to see such ‘transfer’ of learning to other subjects in educational research which suggests that something very deep is happening. Cognitive Acceleration appears to ‘teach intelligence’.

More recent developments have extended the range of activities to primary science in the Foundation Stage(Let's Think) to year 5(Let's Think Through Science). Primary and secondary Maths (CAME), produced similarly successful research evidence. These resources are: Thinking Maths (KS3), Key Stage 1(Let's Think Through Maths) to Years 5 and 6 (Primary CAME).

Currently under development are activities for English Key Stage 3.

Resources have also been produced for technology (CATE), Literacy, Art, Drama and Music.

Structure of the lessons

LT acknowledges that there are a set of subskills which underpin abstract thinking. Early lessons focus on these 'schemata' which vary for subjects and age ranges.

While facts and descriptions can be learned, LT shares with constructivism the view that concepts cannot be learned in the same way. The learner needs to "construct" the meaning for themselves. LT lessons centre on a cognitive challenge which is just beyond the current level of understanding for the learners. The challenge actively engages group discussion which results in the construction of a new meaning for the members in the group.

The role of the Teacher.

If the learner is simply given the challenge they will probably fail. If the teacher simply gives the answer, the learner can only take it in as a fact to be learned. Understanding does not automatically occur. The teacher sets up a good learning-context and intervenes only to guide the learners toward the learning goal by asking probing questions: "What do you think?", "Which one is a more likely solution?" "What do you think about Fred's idea?" When the learning has ground to a halt the teacher can offer clues which send the learner off in the right direction, improving the chance of successful thinking.

Lessons which develop abstract thinking directly have the following structure:

1. An introduction which sets the scene (concrete preparation)
2. A puzzle or challenge which needs to be solved (cognitive conflict)
3. Group-work and discussion where pupils share ideas for solutions (social construction)
4. Learners explaining the thinking which gave the answer (metacognition)
5. Learners making links to everyday applications of the ideas discussed (bridging)

Setting the Scene

"Concrete preparation" serves a similar purpose to the final "bridging" section: it links the activity to current knowledge, explains the task and checks vocabulary.

The Challenge

This must be set just above the current level of secure knowledge - hard enough to be a challenge, but not so hard as would make the learners "switch off". In a science lesson this can take the form of a demonstration with an unexpected effect. In English it could be reading a text which has an implied meaning.

Group-work

Clearly the classroom teacher cannot mediate the learning for every learner in the class. If learners work in groups and discuss their ideas (social construction) there are several benefits:

1. group members act as mediators for each other, suggesting solutions, trying out ideas.
2. individuals feel less vulnerable and more able to participate.
3. random ideas from group-members act as the clues offered by the mediator.

Once the groups have discussed their answers, the class is brought together to share their ideas. Again the teacher does not give the answer. They ask one group for their solution, then ask another if they agree or disagree and why. The discussion continues until there is wide agreement in the group. The teacher leads the group towards the answer through questioning.

Metacognition

During group-work and discussions, the teacher may (mediate) asks questions designed to reveal the thinking process. This process - metacognition - has been shown to be highly effective in securing the knowledge. The learner has to put into words the line of thinking - which makes the process more available both to others listening and the learner.

Bridging

Knowledge learned in isolation from the learner's secure knowledge is usually lost. The learner needs to link (bridge) the new learning to existing experiences. LT lessons conclude with a discussion about where these ideas could be used in everyday life.

Theoretical background

The approach builds on work by Piaget, Vygotsky and Feuerstein and takes a constructivist approach.

From Piaget, LT recognises that there are different types of thinking. At school a most important transition is from concrete thinking - which deals with facts and descriptions, to abstract thinking.

From Vygotsky, LT takes the concept of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD): the difference between what a learner can do without help and what he or she can do with help.

From Feuerstein CA takes the concept that intelligence is not fixed, but is plastic and can be developed. This requires the help of a Mediator: someone who asks questions and allows "guided self-discovery". This mediation is often be done better by peers than by a teacher and so promotes the idea of pupils working in groups to solve a problem.

Bibliography

• Adey, P. & Shayer, M. (1994) Really Raising Standards. London: Routledge
• Adey, P. (Ed.) (2008, forthcoming). Let's Think! Handbook: A Guide to Cognitive Acceleration in the Primary School. London: GL Assessment
• Shayer, M. & Adey, P.S, (2002) (eds.). Learning Intelligence: Cognitive Acceleration across the curriculum from 5 to 15 years. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

For CASE

• Adey, P. S..(1993). Accelerating the development of formal thinking in Middle and High school students IV: three years on after a two-year intervention . Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 4, 351-366.
• Shayer, M., (1999). Cognitive acceleration through science education II: its effects and scope. International Journal of Science Education, 21, (8), 883-902.
• Adey, P.S., Shayer, M. & Yates, C.(1989). Thinking Science: Student and Teachers' materials for the CASE intervention. London: Macmillan

For CAME

• Adhami, M., Johnson, D.C. & Shayer, M. (1995). Thinking Maths: The curriculum materials of the Cognitive Acceleration through Mathematics Education (CAME) project - Teacher's Guide. London: CAME Project/King's College.
• Adhami, M., Robertson, A., & Shayer, M.(2004). Let's Think Through Maths!: Developing thinking in mathematics with five and six-year-olds. London: nferNelson
• Adhami, M., Shayer, M., & Twiss, S.(2005). Let's Think through Maths! 6-9. London: nferNelson

External links

• www.cognitiveacceleration.co.uk The website for CAME (Cognitive Acceleration in Maths Education) and CA in other subjects. Information on theoretical and research background, resources for KS 1-3, teacher and student responses, and professional development courses.