Lessons for Successful Cognitive Developmental Science in Educational Settings: The Case of Executive Functions

ABSTRACT

This article gives a reflective account of lessons learned from the experiences of three cognitive developmental scientists conducting psychological research in educational settings. First, we describe and analyze four key cultural distinctions between traditional approaches to research in psychology and education: 1) different structures, 2) different research philosophies, 3) different time frames, and 4) different semantics. Valuing and understanding the rationale behind the differing views from education is vital for creating effective collaborations. Second, we describe how our independent research questions and methods in the area of executive functions have been impacted by classroom constraints and observations, discussions of findings, and planning interventions. We advocate for shared goal setting with educators because it improves the research design, validity generalizability, and the impact of findings. We anticipate that as psychologists engage in more transparent research, the opportunity to collaborate with educators on educational policy will increase and that these lessons will remain important as we consider policy making in future research studies.

Acknowledgment

The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education. Thanks to our 1) educator colleagues from the Spinney Primary School; 2) some of our own graduate students, who are also professional educators, for thoughtful discussions of the issues raised in the present paper; and 3) Ric Parkin for proofreading.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

Ideas presented in this article were supported by the LEGO Foundation, Economic and Social Research Council (ES/K010255/1, ES/N006577/1, ES/N009266/1), Arts and Humanities Research Council (AH/N004671/1) and the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education (R305A110932) grants to the University of Cambridge. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute of Education Sciences or the U.S. Department of Education.