News & Comment

This comment presents some general principles for multidisciplinary research to capitalize on the growing attention for inequality in education across academic disciplines. The variety of theoretical and methodological perspectives across disciplines results in different conceptual frameworks and empirical designs to study inequality in education. While each framework and design contributes to our shared understanding of the problem, combining these perspectives requires awareness of the various lenses through which educational inequalities are being studied. We identify three dimensions along which perspectives on inequality of education vary between disciplines. These dimensions pertain to (1) how the problem of inequality in education is framed, (2) how inequality in education is empirically evaluated, and (3) how the role of education in fostering (in)equality is conceptualized. In response, we propose three general principles that may help deal with this variation when building a multidisciplinary body of knowledge on inequality in education.

Significant developments have been made to our understanding of how children learn, putting essential pieces to the puzzle of what it means to be human. Theories of learning are, however, headed in diverging directions, and this perspective paper argues that this dispersion can recapitulate recurring schisms in developmental and learning sciences about learning as a predominantly individually constructed or socially transferred process. It is argued that this opposition is unnecessary and that an encompassing understanding of learning should consider both directions. This conciliatory approach considers how humans learn from others and what is known while exploring new solutions. This is important for understanding learning in childhood, seeing learning as a simultaneously individual and social process where humans actively explore and exploit knowledge about the world around them. Framing learning by the metaphor of a Janus face, looking back at what is known while exploring new knowledge, becomes illuminating for understanding learning and provides an essential background for designing educational practices based on active learning.

Closing the research-practice gap in education is an important aim. The ICAP framework (for interactive, constructive, active, and passive engagement modes) explicitly targets this aim and has gained broad attention. The ICAP framework is supposed to support practitioners in translating research findings into practice by distinguishing between four modes of student engagement. In this comment, we consider two central assumptions of the ICAP framework. First, the four modes of engagement are assumed to be “reflected in the overt behavior the student exhibits while undertaking an activity”¹, and thus observable for teachers. Second, the ICAP framework assumes that the interactive mode of engagement is most effective for learning, followed by constructive, then active, and lastly passive modes (i.e. I > C > A > P, the so-called ‘ICAP-hypothesis’^1,2). We argue that both assumptions are inconsistent with central tenets of empirical educational research. First, it is not sufficient to rely on overt behaviors as indicators of learning, because they are ambiguous with respect to the underlying learning process and do not reliably indicate them. Second, there is no “one size fits all”-order of engagement modes. Supposedly inferior engagement modes excel when used in the right way, on the right learners, and with the right timing regarding the learning process. We elucidate the use of formative assessment to gain insight into covert learning processes. Whereas the ICAP framework provides a seemingly plausible and easily actionable guide for practice, practitioners should not be advised to rely on ICAP for selecting effective interventions and assessing learning processes in the classroom.

It is well established that spatial thinking is central to discovery, learning, and communication in mathematics, as indicated by convincing evidence that those with strong spatial skills also demonstrate advantages for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) performance. Yet, spatial thinking—the ability recall, generate, manipulate, and reason about spatial relations—is often absent from modern mathematics curricula. In this commentary, we outline evidence from our recent meta-analysis, demonstrating a causal role of spatial thinking on mathematics. We subsequently discuss the implications of educational policy decisions made across different countries, regarding the prioritization of spatial reasoning in the classroom. Given the increasing global demand for highly qualified STEM graduates, and evidence that spatial skills promote improvements in STEM outcomes, we argue that it is remiss to continue to ignore spatial skill development as a component of educational policy.

Education is indispensable for the flourishing of people from all backgrounds and stages of life. However, given the accelerating demographic, environmental, economical, socio-political, and technological changes—and their associated risks and opportunities—there is increasing consensus that our current educational systems are falling short and that we need to repurpose education and rethink the organization of learning to meet the challenges of the 21st century. The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) “Futures of Education” initiative was formally launched at the United Nations General Assembly in 2019 to provide such a vision of education for the future. The International Scientific and Evidence-based Education (ISEE) Assessment synthesizes knowledge streams generated by different communities and stakeholders at all levels and scales and will thereby essentially contribute to re-envisioning this future of education. The overall aim of the ISEE Assessment is to pool the expertise from a broad range of knowledge holders and stakeholders to undertake a scientifically robust and evidence-based assessment in an open and inclusive manner of our current educational systems and its necessary reforms. In this commentary, we discuss the aims and goals of the ISEE Assessment. We describe how the ISEE Assessment will address key questions on the purpose of education and what, how, where and when we learn, and evaluate the alignment of today’s education and theory of learning with the current and forthcoming needs and challenges and to inform policymaking for future education.