Introduction to Psychology and education:some essential background

Why do we need psychology?

Virtually everybody seems to think that they know a lot about psychology, and about how education

should be run. After all, most of us have had a lot of experience with other people, and virtually all of us

have been to school, or have had some form of experience in which we have learned from others. 

The majority of our ideas about ‘what works’ are built up from personal experience, and these beliefs work

well in our everyday lives. However, they are not necessarily very effective when they are applied to the

particular process of educating children. Here, general rules of thumb and common-sense simplifications can sometimes result in very contradictory perspectives when applied by different people. It can be

impossible to ‘prove’ which of two such opposing views is the more valid

What is educational psychology?

Psychological knowledge and the techniques of psychological study can help us understand these

problems since psychology involves the logical investigation of what people think and what they do.

Psychology includes a wide range of topics and can be applied to many different areas such as education.

where human thinking and behaviour are important. Educational psychology therefore refers to

an area of applied psychology that uses psychological theories and techniques to consider how we

think and learn, and how we can address the learning needs of students.

Ways of investigating

A key feature of psychology as a discipline is its emphasis on developing theories about human behavior and carrying out investigations to test and modify them. A theory is a way of trying to explain as

simply as possible what we know (or think we know) about a particular area. For example, a theory that

most people have about class size and achievement is that ‘smaller classes are better for children and lead to improved achievements’. From this theory we might make the following prediction (hypothesis):

‘Children taught in classes no bigger than six will have better end of year test results than children who

are taught in classes of 30.’ This process of identifying a theory, making a prediction that tests it, and

then collecting data to see if the prediction is supported, is known as the hypothetico-deductive

method, and has its roots in science. Other techniques, described later in this chapter, are inductive in

nature: these approaches actively avoid the initial use of theories, instead allowing theoretical explanations to emerge from more open-ended analysis of the data or evidence obtained.

An experimental investigation of class size could look at what happens when we change only

the particular thing (or variable) that we are interested in, in this case how many children are being

taught together. For instance, we could investigate the effects of class size on achievement by setting

up different-sized groups and measuring children’s progress with their school work. For us to know

that class size was the only thing having an effect, we would have to make sure that all other aspects

of the classes being compared were as identical as possible, so that we might be confident that if there

are differences in achievement, it is because of the difference in class size, rather than other factors,

such as who was teaching the class, or the way in which the children were seated in the class. Such

unintentional differences between groups in experiments which have the potential to offer an alternative

explanation of the results obtained are known as confounding variables.

A good experimental investigation would set up different-sized classes with matched groups of

pupils, to cancel out or ‘control for’ the effects of student ability. Matching is the process of finding

children with similar personal characteristics (such as age, gender or general ability), and allocating them

to different groups in an experiment, so that the children in each group are similar to each other. An

alternative to matching pupils on the basis of ability would be to randomly allocate students to either a

treatment group (in which the children receive some form of educational intervention) or the control

or comparison groups. A control group is a group used in intervention study designs that have exactly

the same experience as the treatment group except for the intervention itself. Often they receive

‘normal classroom tuition’ but better studies will give the control group a dummy intervention to participate

in (i.e. a ‘treatment’ that we would not expect to have any effect on the performance variable

being measured). The reason this is a good idea is that it enables us to control for any placebo effects.

That is, students receiving something different from the norm may have an expectation that this will

benefit them, and this in itself may motivate them to try harder or affect their performance in other

ways. By giving both groups something novel to do, it means that both groups have the same level of expectation. Another consideration that researchers have to bear in mind is the potential, indirect,

motivational effects that extra attention from a researcher may have on student performance. This is

known as the Hawthorn Effect. So studies that include a dummy intervention are also a good idea

because they enable both sets of children to have similar levels of contact with the research team –

having normal classroom tuition as the control experience does not afford this.

There is a lot to be said for directly setting up different educational experiences for children, since

the outcomes may then be assumed to be closely related to what was done. However, doing so can be

very difficult in practice. Interfering with children’s education in this way can also be ethically questionable,

since children in some of the groups are likely to learn less well. Many educational investigations

therefore avoid these problems by using techniques where the investigator uses only information

that is already available, or looks at situations that already exist.

Such non-experimental investigations are typically based on observational techniques. These

can involve an investigator directly, perhaps watching children in a class, or be based on indirect data

such as school records. Such approaches can sometimes be quasi-experimental (‘quasi’ meaning ‘as

if↜’), when it is possible to assume that a change in one thing is related to a change in something else.

‘Natural experiments’ can make this more likely. For instance, if a new form of educational practice

(such as the literacy hour) is introduced, we can compare children’s educational progress before

and after its introduction.

One very common form of observational investigation – perhaps the least experimental – is to

evaluate the extent to which one thing naturally varies along with, or correlates with, something

else. Such investigations are often easy to carry out and can be fertile ground for developing new ideas

or hypotheses about the way things work.

The main difficulty with such non-experimental approaches is that any outcomes might not necessarily

be the result of any change in some other particular measure. For instance, if we looked only at

existing classes of different sizes, we could be fooled by the fact that many schools use small classes for

pupils of below-average ability. We might then conclude that small classes have the effect of reducing

attainments!

However, since such investigations do not involve interference or control by an investigator, it can

be argued that they are more likely to be valid, in the sense that they are more naturalistic, or show

what normally goes on. They can also lend themselves to personal involvement, and possibly more

meaningful interpretation, by an investigator. This happens in participant research, where the

investigator might for instance become part of a teaching team. Observational data also fit well with

the use of qualitative approaches (see below), with an emphasis on the direct experiences and interpretations

of those who are involved.

Quantitative and qualitative approaches

A great deal of educational research involves measuring things. Although such quantitative

approaches allow us to use powerful statistical techniques, they can often have the effect of simplifying

and distorting what is really happening, because things have to be put into categories of some kind.

Children, teachers and the processes and outcomes of education are much more than just sets of numbers.

A good example is early reading skills, which emphasise decoding using sounds and letters. These

are very different from more advanced skills, which involve comprehension and the use of context. It

could be very misleading to compare different reading levels along a single scale, as though higher

attainments were just more of the same thing.

Qualitative approaches attempt to get closer to reality by looking at information that differs in

kind rather than in amount. They may involve using more direct and richer information, such as the

recording of complete observations, or descriptions by teachers or pupils about what they are doing or

how they feel. This information is close to the way things are, and Glaser and Strauss (1967) argue

that it enables researchers to develop a grounded theory, one which arises from the information

gathered, rather than just depending on modifying existing theories. However, Silverman (2005) notes

that modern qualitative research has two main models or perspectives within it which are worth being

aware of. The emotionalist model is primarily interested in looking at a situation from an individual’s

point of view, and is interested in perceptions and emotional reactions to situations. The

counterpoint to this is the constructionist model, which emphasises what people are doing, without

necessarily dwelling on the reasoning or emotions behind those actions.

In reality, qualitative and quantitative approaches are closely related. Most quantitative research

involves qualitative decisions about which variables to study and about what are appropriate techniques

to analyse the data. An initial qualitative approach can also develop into a subsequent quantitative

analysis; for example, once individuals’ responses have been placed into meaningful groupings,

these can then be calculated as percentages or analysed for significant differences.

Describing and analysing findings

With quantitative data, psychological and educational researchers often use statistics to describe and

analyse what they have found. It is useful to have a basic idea of some key statistical concepts so that

you can understand and be critical of how the information from investigations has been interpreted.

The Appendix to this book explains some of the terms and techniques that are referred to throughout

the book.

One of the greatest errors, but a typical one, is to assume that because the results of a statistical test

are ‘statistically significant’, this automatically means that the results are psychologically or educationally

meaningful. If you understand something about the basic ideas of statistics, you are much less

likely to be misled about findings that are marginal or misleading.

Qualitative information typically takes the form of direct recordings of events and their meanings,

or of people’s own descriptions, often referred to as narratives. Interpreting such diverse information

can involve selecting key themes and reporting on them by reproducing parts of transcripts. In one

example, Walker (1998) carried out an analysis of the functions of secondary school parents’ evenings,

using parts of her interviews with parents to demonstrate that such meetings were almost invariably

perceived as frustrating and distressing.

Qualitative analyses often involve setting up possible categories into which the information can be

placed. One advantage of having access to the entire range of original information is that such categories

can be modified if alternative groupings subsequently appear to be more meaningful. Although

this may make conclusions appear rather fluid and unreliable, they can be confirmed by comparing

the views found by different types of investigations or information (triangulation), or by repeating

the cycle of gathering and analysing information (replication). In any case, it can be argued that such

approaches are more likely to result in findings that have some real meaning for a particular area. As

discussed later in this chapter (see ‘Shifting paradigms’, pp. 7–10), any categories that we use can be

seen as social constructs and are therefore bound to be somewhat arbitrary. However, qualitative

researchers value subjective experience and interpretation as valid data which tell us about how individuals

experience the world. Whether or not that subjective interpretation is ‘right’ in absolute terms

is not relevant if there are very real consequences to how the individual sees the situation they are in

Applying psychology

‘Pure’ psychology tries to arrive at general theories that can help us understand basic areas such as

learning, memory, motivation, etc. However, practical education is a complex situation and there are

often many factors that interact or combine to give rise to a number of different effects. For example,

academic achievement can be the outcome of the interaction between home- and school-based factors,

with initial home-based advantages being consolidated by early educational success.

It is therefore always important to evaluate real-life applications of psychological ideas, rather than

rely on ideas that are derived purely from the original abstract theories; these are often based on work

that was originally far removed from the realities of real-life teaching. Some of the early psychological

theories about learning, for instance, were derived largely from studying the responses of rats and

pigeons in mazes and cages!

Differing perspectives

Applying psychology to education also often involves viewing areas from a number of different psychological

perspectives (see Table 1.1). Applying these perspectives to educational topics can generate

alternative ways of approaching problems. Each of the perspectives generates a very different way of

understanding the behaviour of children in school. The various approaches are often complementary.

For instance, achieving optimum arousal levels by using a dynamic teaching style will facilitate general

involvement with learning tasks. When pupils are more alert, they are then also more likely to

respond to other strategies that will focus them on their work, such as the use of praise in operant

conditioning (associating a voluntary response with a stimulus).

On the other hand, some perspectives can give rise to contradictory approaches. Behaviourism,

for instance, can appear rather simplistic and may encourage an approach based on rote learning.

Cognitive approaches, however, emphasise the use of meaning and understanding, and seem closer

to what we personally experience in learning situations. Despite this, behavioural approaches can

still be very useful in analysing and managing problem behaviours. Recent developments consider

that behavioural conditioning is the result of developing expectancies about what will happen in

certain situations, and that behaviourism can therefore be seen as a particular subset of cognitive

processes.

Developmental psychology

Psychology also tries to account for the ways in which children establish basic abilities such as reasoning,

problem-solving and language use. General developmental theories that cover these can be

applied to education to help us understand learning situations. This can be seen in Chapter 2, which

considers the role of Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, and Chapter 9, which looks at the way

in which language abilities are developed. Other areas, such as the development of social roles and

identity, and the establishment of basic academic attainments such as reading, also depend to some

extent on progress with other underlying skills and abilities.

The importance of theory

There is a famous remark by Allport (1947) that the aims of science are ‘understanding, prediction

and€control, above the levels achieved by unaided common sense’. This perspective is very useful in guiding psychological investigations, and emphasises that we should be able to use theoretical knowledge

to help us with applied areas and to go beyond everyday experience and understanding.

Developments in education often lack this theoretical foundation and are frequently inspired by

social processes or ideological beliefs, a fact that can lead to cycles of change as the general social climate

alters. For instance, in the 1940s it was commonly believed that the most efficient way of educating

children was to select them for different types of schooling using the ‘eleven-plus’ and also to

‘stream’ them into different general ability groups. A later ideological emphasis on equality of opportunity

subsequently led to the development of comprehensive schools and mixed-ability teaching.

However, there are now signs that there is a shift backwards in this perspective, with many schools

reverting to increased selection and ability grouping of pupils, even at the primary level.

A psychological perspective could help us to limit such swings of fashion by providing theories and

knowledge about the realistic advantages and disadvantages of such developments. For instance, it has

been shown that selection of pupils on the basis of the eleven-plus (an intelligence test) is not a very

accurate or useful process. Research also indicates that streaming of children into different ability

groups within schools leads to only limited improvements with the higher groups. It can also lead to

pupils in lower groups receiving inferior education, partly because of teacher expectations, and the

negative social groupings that can happen in such classes.

Further reading

Breakwell, Hammond, Fife-�Shaw and Smith (eds) (2006), Research Methods in Psychology: a

more detailed text covering both qualitative and quantitative approaches to psychological research.

A helpful book if you are already familiar with research methods, but need specific guidance.

Greig, Taylor and MacKay (2007), Doing Research with Children: a good basic introduction to

designing research projects that involve children as participants.

Martin, Carlson and Buskist (2010), Psychology: an introductory text for those who are unfamiliar

with psychology as a general discipline.