Conclusion

We have drawn conclusions throughout the book, identifying key messages from each chapter and we have attempted to pull together overarching messages in the last two chapters. In this final chapter, we invite the reader to consider the status of sociocultural theory as a science. While we have referred to it as a science at various points in the book, we have not offered a justification for this nomenclature. On the basis of the analyses offered, we believe attention to its scientific status merits some commentary. In this chapter, we propose that sociocultural theory offers a science of learning. First, our final vignette, which, we suggest, nicely bookends the account we offered in Chapter 1 of the International Neuroscience Conference. This vignette is taken from the notes one of us made having participated, in 2011, in a Parliamentary Research Enquiry in England. It was entitled: ‘How do children learn and what does this mean for education policy?’

I proceeded through Westminster Hall and Central Lobby and followed directions to the Upper Committee Corridor. I entered a packed Committee Room 20 and took my seat peripherally as the focal round table participants made final adjustments to seating and media arrangements. The session was Chaired by Mr. Graham Stuart, M P, Chair of the Education Select Committee, and was jointly organized by Cambridge Assessment, the University of Cambridge's international exams group, and Cambridge University's Centre for Science and Policy. The rationale for the session was to give experts the opportunity to provide policy makers with information about the cognitive processes of students. Acknowledging that rapid strides were being made in this field, the assumption was that policy makers ought to be updated on these changes so that education policies could reflect cutting-edge scientific views of learning. Policy makers were invited to question a number of practices like why national assessments occur at certain ages, whether these reflect cognitive break-points, and whether there was justification for the split between primary and secondary education.

Professor Usha Goswami, Director of the Centre for Neuroscience in Education, Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge commenced proceedings with the brief, ‘how children learn’. According to Goswami environments affect brains. ‘Rich environments’, she said, ‘are the key to supporting learning’. She argued that ‘language in the early years is vital. And if rich language models are not available in the home, schools need to provide them’. For Goswami, teachers must be trained to recognize that ‘language is key to fostering self regulation’. Language, she said, ‘is totally undervalued in teacher training practices and government policy’. Cognitive neuroscience, according to Goswami ‘is not currently fed into teaching practices’ but ought to be incorporated into teacher training modules, curriculum and government policy. The starting point should be a ‘science of learning’. Goswami provided the example of Finland where the Finnish government ‘supports scientists and draws on scientific expertise to filter into teacher training modules and classroom practice’. At the end of her presentation, Graham Stuart, M P, Chair of the Education Select Committee asked Goswami ‘What area of policy change would you argue for?’ She firmly responded ‘Dyslexia exists. Get on and help. Embed science into policy, skill-up teachers, and train teachers at a national level’.

The next speaker was Professor Robert Burden, Emeritus Professor, Educational Psychology/Education Studies, University of Exeter. He argued that environment is vital to learning. He stated that no learning occurs in isolation but rather in a range of contexts, including informal learning contexts that are dynamic and flexible. Within a classroom context teachers are the mediators. Motivation, for Burden, is ‘crucial especially in adolescent brains’. Asked ‘What area of policy change would you argue for?’ Burden steadfastly replied ‘Change policy on the basis of scientific evidence’.

Professor Trevor Robbins, Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Cambridge and Head of the Department of Experimental Psychology, delivered the final presentation. He defined learning as ‘diverse, multidimensional and mediated by a plastic brain’. He continued, ‘learning is optimal when we are young’ and ought to be ‘active’ and ‘directed’. He described as ‘vital’ the exposure to rich language when a child is young. Asked ‘What area of policy change would you argue for?’ Robbins decisively responded ‘Make changes to curriculum in imaginative ways. In the area of language we need feasibility studies’.

Comments from the floor noted that ‘teachers need to undergo an extensive period of training akin to the medical profession. They need to become effective practitioners’; ‘teacher training needs to be university based’; and ‘people in neuroscience need to be motivated to make a difference in this debate’.