New resources for education researchers

Abstract

One of my indispensable resources has been, for many years, How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (National Research Council, 2000). This is the report that taught me how experts think differently from novices, and how those differences influence knowledge transfer. This is the report I’ve cited hundreds of times and seen cited by others in papers and proposals thousands of times. I’ve given it to my students to read, shared it with colleagues, shown the cover in dozens of talks to encourage others to download it. It is so commonly used that many people refer to it simply by its acronym: HPL. HPL laid out an extensive research agenda focused on bridging research and practice. That agenda consisted of five overarching themes, and thirty-three projects within seven areas. Most of these projects focused on incorporating the conclusions of the report into educational practice, including examining existing practices, identifying preconceptions in different fields, reviewing teacher preparation and professional development programs, and developing model laboratories. Another third of the projects addressed the needs for research that would expand foundational knowledge in how people learn. The committee identified both infrastructural needs, such as collaborations across disciplines and interdisciplinary approaches to the science of learning, as well as scholarly needs, such as investigating the interactions between cognition and motivation. That research agenda did not go unmet, and the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) recently released How People Learn II: Learners, Contexts, and Cultures (NASEM, 2018a). As the title implies, the report is meant as an update to the original HPL. The committee was tasked with synthesizing the research on learning that has emerged since 2000, with particular attention to the research that is most relevant for incorporation into practice and policy. HPL II is not, according to the study’s authors, a book that will help you figure out what to do tomorrow in your classroom. Instead, the committee expects readers to think critically about the findings and how they relate to research questions in their own professional contexts. The biggest shift in focus from HPL is encapsulated in the subtitle: the new report emphasizes that learners cannot be separated from their contexts, that they “function within complex developmental, cognitive, physical, social, and cultural systems” (p. 2). Chapters in the report focus on the critical role of motivation and prior knowledge, and the importance of considering what each individual is bringing to the learning environment. In contrast to HPL, the new report lays out a brief, two-part research agenda: meeting the needs of all learners, and the implications of the science of learning for the design of technology to support learning. Another widely-cited report from the National Academies is America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science (National Research Council, 2006). This study defined laboratory experiences as providing “opportunities for students to interact directly with the material world (or data drawn from the material world) using the tools, data collection techniques, models, and theories of science” (p. 194-5) and laid out seven learning goals that such experiences should support. In 2006, the committee concluded that few laboratory experiences achieved these goals, and that the “quality of current laboratory experiences is poor for most students” (p. 197). In response, curricular reform efforts sought to align their work with the goals, including the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (Bybee et al., 2006) and a variety of virtual labs (e.g. Nelson & Ketelhut, 2007). Since 2006, we have seen the development and publication of A Framework for K–12 Science Education (National Research Council, 2012) and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013), which together represent a new vision for the science classroom and provide the foundation for the current reform in science education in the United States. As a result of those two publications, our vision of what