The Psychology of Education Review Vol 29 No 2 Sept 05

Volume 29 Number 2September 2005

The Psychology ofEducation Review

The British Psychological SocietyPsychology of Education Section

ISSN: 0262-4088

The Psychology of Education Review – Volume 29 Number 2 September 2005 – ISSN 0262-4088

EDITORSJustine Howard & Ruth Kershner

PSYCHOLOGY OF EDUCATION SECTION – OFFICERS & COMMITTEE 2005

Chair:Susan Hallam University of London, Institute of Education. E-mail: [email protected]

The Psychology of Education Review editors:Justine Howard University of Glamorgan. E-mail: [email protected] Kershner University of Cambridge. E-mail: [email protected]

Secretary:Lynne Rogers University of London, Institute of Education. E-mail: [email protected]

Treasurer:Pam Qualter University of Central Lancashire. E-mail: [email protected]

Membership Secretary:Penelope Munn University of Strathclyde. E-mail: [email protected]

Ordinary Committee Members:Donald Christie University of Strathclyde. E-mail: [email protected] Elliott University of Sunderland. E-mail: [email protected] Hutchinson University of Central Lancashire. E-mail: [email protected] Ireson University of London, Institute of Education. E-mail: [email protected] Remedios University of Stirling. E-mail: [email protected] Reynolds University of London, Institute of Education. E-mail: [email protected] Rideout University of Glasgow. E-mail: [email protected] Sutherland University of Stirling. E-mail: [email protected]

Co-opted Member:Julie Dockrell University of London, Institute of Education. E-mail: [email protected]

THIS EDITION OF The Psychology ofEducation Review includes a verythought-provoking open dialogue on

the topic of Neuroscience and Education.It is introduced by Professor Usha Goswami,Director of the new Centre for Neurosciencein Education which is located in the Univer-sity of Cambridge Faculty of Education.Given the subtitle of this open dialogue, ‘thebrain in the classroom’, we are particularlypleased to have two responses from prac-tising teachers in primary and special educa-tion, both of whom have studied psychologyat higher degree level. Teachers’ perspec-tives are essential to enrich and guide thecurrent debates about neuroscience,psychology and education. The opendialogue demonstrates the potentially wide-ranging educational implications of neuro-scientific research and it highlights the valueof establishing dialogue and further collabo-ration between teachers and researchers.We are also very pleased to have an indi-vidual paper in this issue and we wouldwelcome future submissions of full papers orshort accounts of work in progress.

We are looking forward to the 2005Annual Conference to be held on 4–6 November at the University of Durham. The main themes of Learners and Learning,Self concept, Memory and Social Inter-actions should provide something of interestfor everyone. Professor Herb Marsh, Univer-sity of Western Sydney, will give the Vernon-Wall lecture, and Professor SusanGathercole, University of Durham, will speakon Working Memory and ClassroomLearning.

Further details of the conference are available on the Psychology of Educa-tion pages in the BPS website(http://www.bps.org.uk/education/events/events_home.cfm).

This is the last edition of PER to involvePeter Pumfrey as Book Reviews Editor. Peterhas made an exceptional contribution formany years in this role and in his committeework for the Section. We would like to thankhim on behalf of the committee and themembers, and wish him well in the future.We are sad to see him go and he’s a hard actto follow, but we are sure that the new BookReviews Editors, Peter Sutherland andColette Gray, will maintain the high qualityof this important part of PER.

Justine Howard & Ruth KershnerCo-Editors.

EditorialJustine Howard & Ruth Kershner

The Psychology of Education Review, Vol. 29, No. 2, September 2005 1© The British Psychological Society ISSN 0262-4088

THERE IS GROWING lay interest in thebrain sciences, and in how neurosciencecan be applied to education and to the

classroom. It will not be long before parentsworried about their child’s progress in schoolare offered the chance to have a private brainscan, and it is not beyond the bounds of imag-ination that teachers and headteachers maybe faced with parents bringing in neuroscien-tific assessments on which they are expectedto act. Current neuroscience techniquescannot offer such detailed information aboutindividual children, and it is important thateducators are aware of the state of the art. Atthe same time, neuroscience does hold outsome very exciting possibilities for education.It seems preferable for educators to engagewith these possibilities now, while the applica-tion of neuroscience to education is still in itsinfancy, so that they can influence the futuredevelopment of the field. If this opportunity ismissed, schools may rely on the variety ofcommercial educational packages that appearto be based on neuroscience, but which infact have at best tangential links with actualdata.

Selected basics of brain developmentand measurementThe brain is the key organ of learning. In this respect, it is of central interest to

teachers. We already know that most of thebrain cells (neurons) that a child brings tothe classroom form before birth, by theseventh month of gestation (see Johnson,1997, for a more detailed overview). Afterbirth, brain development consists mainly ofthe growth of connections between neurons:synaptogenesis. Brain cells pass information toeach other via low-voltage electrical signals,which travel from neuron to neuron viaspecial junctions called synapses. As soon asthe child is born, the brain is busy sculptingconnections between neurons, proliferatingsome connections and pruning others. Theelectrical signal is propagated across thesynapse by chemical messengers calledneurotransmitters. There are around 100billion neurons in the brain, all withmultiple connections. Neuroscientistsassume that when many neurons are ‘firing’together, the patterns of neural activitycorrespond to particular mental states ormental ‘representations’. Every lesson that achild participates in changes the connectivityof their brain. So too does every social inter-action and every emotional experience. In atrivial sense, connectivity is changing on adaily basis, in fact the brain grows newconnections even in old age. To documentthe effect of any educational experience,therefore, it is not sufficient to demonstrate

2 The Psychology of Education Review, Vol. 29, No. 2, September 2005© The British Psychological Society ISSN 0262-4088

Open Dialogue:

Neuroscience and Education: The brain inthe classroomUsha Goswami

Recent advances in neuroscience have been hailed with enthusiasm by some educators, and treated withsceptical caution by others. Here I outline the potentially exciting applications of the state of the art to educa-tion, while acknowledging the rather limited contribution made by neuroscience to date. I argue that it iscrucial for education to engage with neuroscience, so that an informed critical stance can be adopted to thedifferent claims that are appearing about brain-based learning. Education as a discipline has been slow totake the initiative, creating a knowledge gap that is being filled by those actively marketing various educa-tional programmes to teachers and schools on the basis of often spurious claims about the brain.

a change in connectivity. Any educationalintervention of any kind will always changeconnectivity.

The child’s brain is also working harderthan the adult’s. Brain metabolism (as meas-ured by glucose uptake, which is an approxi-mate index of synaptic functioning) is wellabove adult levels in the early years. The rela-tive rates at which different areas of the brainare working for different learning experi-ences can be determined by comparing theblood flow to different brain regions. Thetype of neuroscience which can be applied toeducation (cognitive neuroscience) workseither by measuring relative blood flow, or bymeasuring directly the electrical signals thattransmit the information. The former meas-urement technique (functional magneticresonance imaging, or fMRI) relies on thefact that as blood flow to particular brainareas increases, the distribution of water inthe brain tissue changes. fMRI works bymeasuring the magnetic resonance signalgenerated by the protons of water moleculesin neural cells, generating a BOLD (bloodoxygenation level dependent) response.Increases or decreases in BOLD response inspecific brain areas are used to make infer-ences about learning or processing. Forexample, when we hear human speech,blood flow to the temporal lobe increases.

fMRI is very sensitive to where in the braininformation is being processed, but the tech-nique can only acquire images of activityover periods of approximately half a second.Hence fMRI is not very sensitive to thetiming of mental events. Timing, of course, iscrucial. For example, it has long beenbelieved that individual differences inprocessing time cause differences in intelli-gence (e.g. Anderson, 2001). In order tomeasure the time course of the weak elec-trical signals that transmit information in thebrain, very sensitive electrodes are used.These are placed on the child’s scalp in akind of ‘cap’ formation. If the spontaneousnatural rhythms of the brain are beingrecorded, this is called EEG (electro-encephalography). More usually in cognitive

neuroscience, the child is shown particularevents in order to elicit systematic deflec-tions in electrical activity. These are calledEvent Related Potentials or ERPs. ERPs aretime-locked to specific events. For example,when a child hears a sound, the brain regis-ters the event within 100ms of its occur-rence, and has decided after about 250mswhether the sound is novel or not. WhileERPs can distinguish timing differences of1ms, the source of the electrical signal isusually difficult to localise. Currentneuroimaging techniques hence comple-ment each other. fMRI gives precise infor-mation about location, but not about timing.ERPs give precise timing information, butsource localisation is difficult.

What can we measure?As this brief description makes clear, currenttechniques exert important limitations onhow cognitive neuroscience can be appliedto education. If we wish to discover why onechild is artistic and another is not, orwhether one child is especially creative, whatcould we measure? There is no simple indexof creativity that could be mapped bychanges in blood flow or by the relativespeed of ERPs. On the other hand, if we wishto find out whether some children (who areperhaps at risk of epileptic seizures whenplaying videogames) have an abnormalneural response to light, or whether otherchildren (who are perhaps at risk of devel-oping reading difficulties) are insensitive tochanges in a certain class of sounds, we canuse visual or auditory evoked potentials(visual or auditory ERPs) to study whetherthe brains of these children are respondingdifferently compared to the brains ofchildren without such difficulties (seeWilkins et al., 2004; Maurer et al., 2003, forrelated work). Even so, it is difficult to drawconclusions at the level of the individualchild. Cognitive neuroscience currentlyrelies largely on group comparisons.

Is it possible to use cognitive neuro-science to discover whether different educa-tional interventions are working as claimed?

The Psychology of Education Review 3

Neuroscience and Education

Again, it depends on the intervention. If achild has been learning fine motor co-ordi-nation via a certain training technique, wecannot study the neural source of anyapparent improvements, because neither ofthe imaging methods currently available cantolerate much movement artefact. For bothERP and fMRI, children need to keep still,and (for ERP) they should not move theireyes too much. For fMRI, they actually needto lie still in a noisy and somewhat claustro-phobic magnet. If children are required topress buttons or manipulate things in orderto measure the success of an intervention,again, brain responses due to the responseorganisation and motor demands of theseoutcome measures must be separated frombrain responses due to the cognitive skill ofinterest. For example, if we want to measurethe child’s ability to recognise whether visualstimuli are words or nonsense words, theymay have to press one button for a real wordand another button for nonsense. The brainactivity specific to the act of accessingmeaning must then be distinguished fromthe brain activity due to the act of recog-nising a sequence of visual symbols, ofrecoding the symbols into sound, and oforganising and executing a button press.

The importance of experimental designIn fact, probably the most important point tomake about studies relying on neurosciencetechniques is that all the usual rules aboutresearch design apply. If a target group ofdyslexics is given a certain intervention, andchanges in brain activity are compared to agroup of children who received no interven-tion (an unseen control group), differencesin neural activity will of course be found (e.g.Temple et al., 2003). These differencescannot be attributed to the type of interven-tion used, unless an additional control groupare recruited who receive the same amountof extra intervention from the same experi-menters, and this intervention varies fromthe target intervention by only the specificfactor of interest. Similarly, target andcontrol groups must be matched for core

variables like language ability and cognitiveability. For example, if a target group ofautistic children are given an emotion recog-nition task, and their brain activity iscompared to that of a control group ofautistic children who have not been matchedfor language age and general cognitiveability, any group differences found in brainactivity will be ambiguous. They could reflectdifficulties in recognising emotion in theautistics, but they could also reflect an infe-rior ability to label these emotions linguisti-cally, or a cognitive difficulty with taskdemands unrelated to emotional processing.Finally, any group comparisons in any kindof task should ideally be carried out ongroups matched for their ability to performthe task in question. Suppose you want todetermine whether deaf children recruitdifferent areas of the brain to make phono-logical similarity judgements compared tohearing children. To find out, you wouldneed to ensure that both groups of childrenwere equally efficient at performing thephonological similarity task (e.g. do thesewords rhyme? Cart–heart). If the deaf groupwere worse than the hearing group to beginwith, any differences found in the corticalareas activated by the task could reflect thisdifference in efficiency rather than a differ-ence in how the brain sets about the task.And for any imaging study, we always need toask the question – what has imaging told usthat we could not have learned from a simplebehavioural comparison? In many currentstudies, the answer is, unfortunately, ‘notmuch’. In most studies, a change or differ-ence in behaviour is accompanied by achange or difference in neural activity. Wehave good correlations, but usually thechange or difference in neural activity tellsus nothing extra about how learning is goingon in the brain.

The possibilities for the futureGiven these many caveats, what can brainscience offer education? In fact, as long asstringent research designs are used and aslong as technology continues to improve at

4 The Psychology of Education Review

Usha Goswami

the current rate, it should be able to offermany things. Within the next 20 years,methods should be so refined that we willhave robust data at the level of the individualchild, and core neurodevelopmental aspectsof the typical acquisition of language,literacy, numeracy and emotional regulation(behavioural inhibition) should be under-stood, enabling deviations from typicaldevelopment to be picked up early and inquite specific ways. I will select three exam-ples of what neuroscience could offer educa-tion based on data that is already beingcollected.

One area for which neuroscience hasgreat potential is special education.Consider, for example, the causal origins ofdevelopmental language disorders. Somelanguage disorders affect at least one childin every classroom, for example dyslexia andspecific language impairment (SLI). Someprominent theories of each disorderattribute the underlying cause to an auditoryprocessing deficit: the brain is notprocessing incoming linguistic informationin the way that it should (e.g. Tallal, 2004;Goswami et al., 2002). Nevertheless, thesetheories disagree on the nature of the funda-mental deficit, and there are equally promi-nent theories suggesting other causes, suchas a cerebellar weakness for dyslexia or aspecific genetically-carried grammaticaldeficit for SLI (e.g. Nicolson & Fawcett,1999; van der Lely et al., 1998). The timecourse of ERPs offer a way of assessing thesecompeting theories. We already know thatauditory signals result in characteristic brainresponses such as the N100 (a negativedeflection at about 100ms as the sound isregistered) and the mis-match negativity (orMMN, a relative change in negativity if thesound is different from preceding sounds,for example if it is a/b/ rather than a/d/,see Cheour et al., 1997). Hence the N100and MMN could be used to compare thedifferent auditory theories. Similarly, cere-bellar function could be studied in dyslexicsusing fMRI, and grammatical processingcould be studied in SLI children using ERP

(the characteristic neural response to gram-matical anomalies is a positivity at 600ms, theP600). Ideally, all of these responses wouldbe studied in the same children, enablingthe different causal theories to be pittedagainst each other. We could find outwhether a child can be dyslexic without anymeasurable cerebellar deficit, or whether achild could have SLI and yet show a perfectlytypical P600.

In fact, ERP studies have already demon-strated abnormal processing of auditorysignals in children with SLI and dyslexia atthe group level. Areas of difficulty includeconsonant and vowel duration, pitchdiscrimination, and phonetic contrasts (e.g.Bishop & McArthur, 2004; Bradlow et al.,1999; Csépe et al., 2001; Kraus et al., 1996;Leppänen et al., 1999; Richardson et al.,2003; Schulte-Körne et al., 1998). Theseabnormal responses correlate with behav-iour (less accurate perceptual responding),but are often similar to the responses ofmuch younger typically developing children(see, for example, Bishop & McArthur,2004). Such results imply that the brain isprocessing auditory signals in the same wayin children with developmental languagedisorders as in typically-developing children,but with reduced efficiency. What is needednow is longitudinal studies, following infantswho show such discrepant responses, andmapping the effects on the development oftheir language systems. Eventually, it shouldbecome possible to distinguish neural‘markers’ of risk in the cradle, enabling earlyand focused intervention while the languagesystem is still developing. The simplistic viewwould be that the brains of these infants willstill learn the same types of things aboutlanguage as the brains of typically-devel-oping children from the same types of input.However, a greater amount of perhapsenriched input may be required if learning isto follow a similar developmental trajectory.

The core educational areas of literacyand numeracy can also benefit from a neuro-science approach. Consider the develop-ment of numeracy. Imaging techniques have



the potential to demonstrate what childrenunderstand about number before they arevery accurate in calculation or even incounting. For example, we already know thatthere is a phylogenetically ‘old’ system fornumber, present in animals and alreadyfunctioning in human infants, that recordsthe ‘amount of stuff’ that is out there – asystem for recording approximatenumerosity (Dehaene et al., 1998). At thesame time, we have a culturally-transmittedsymbolic system for number, based on Arabicnumerals. Symbolic number acquisitionenables calculation and the appreciation ofthe relations between quantities, and eventu-ally enables higher mathematics. Yetchildren take a while to learn the countsequence, and even when they are countingaccurately, there is debate concerningwhether they understand what they aredoing when they assign labels to quantities.Again, imaging methods can help us to findout how much they do understand. In adults,the parietal areas of the brain are activatedwhen numbers or quantities (e.g. sets ofdots) are compared, and it has been shownthat five-year-olds activate the same parietalareas when comparing Arabic digits as adults(e.g. is three smaller or larger than five? SeeTemple & Posner, 1998). However, thechildren take three times as long as theadults to make their response. Hence behav-iourally, they appear to be less sure thatthree is smaller than five, even thoughneurally they get there at the same time andin the same way. Simple number comparisontasks such as this can be used with ERPimaging to track the development ofnumber understanding in young children.For example, we can study how the innate‘number sense’ becomes integrated with thesymbolic number system (see Szûcs, in press,for a specific discussion).

Finally, consider long-standing educa-tional questions such as the debateconcerning the utility of different methodsfor the initial teaching of reading. Thependulum has swung from ‘whole language’methods, in which reading was regarded as a

psycholinguistic guessing game and the taskof the teacher was to provide realistic andexciting texts, to phonics-based methods, inwhich the task of the teacher is to instructchildren in letter-sound correspondences,either without books or perhaps using arestricted range of texts chosen so that allwords have predictable spelling patterns(often leading to linguistically-peculiartexts). ERP methods offer an in-principleway of distinguishing the effects of thesedifferent instructional regimes on the devel-opment of decoding and comprehension.Whole language methods might be expectedto improve semantic aspects of language(e.g. noticing semantic anomalies), whilephonics might be expected to improvephonetic aspects (e.g. the point at which /b/and /d/ are recognised as different sounds).The relative development of the two kinds ofskill could be studied in children followingthe two kinds of instructional method. Infact, imaging work in Hungarian has alreadycompared eight-year-old children beingtaught to read by whole language methodswith eight-year-olds being taught to read byphonics (children in Hungary enter schoolat age six). It was found that during the firstyear of teaching, the MMN to phoneticchanges (like /b/ – /d/) showed a signifi-cantly shorter latency in the phonicschildren only (Csépe et al., 2001). Thissuggests that the phonics tuition was ‘sharp-ening up’ the phonetic aspects of thelanguage system. However, it may have hadlittle impact on other aspects of reading, likesemantic comprehension. By giving childrensentences to comprehend and tracking thecharacteristic brain response to semanticanomalies (the N400), we could find out.

ConclusionsAlthough it is important to be aware of thelimitations of current imaging technology,neuroscience has a lot to offer education.Brain imaging enables children’s abilities tobe studied in an objective manner, withoutrequiring overt responses, and often in para-digms that do not require overt attention


Usha Goswami

(e.g. auditory paradigms) and that are diffi-cult to influence by inadvertent social cueing(e.g. if the child is inside the magnet).Imaging also allows interactions betweendifferent neural systems to be studied at thesame time. If a child is emotionally upset, forexample, this will show up in the relativepatterns of neural activity. Hence even if, forexample, mathematical ability is the focus ofthe study, the child’s emotional reactions tohaving to manipulate numbers will berecorded at the same time. Any imagingstudy is, however, only as good as its researchdesign, and the usual rules of doing goodexperiments in education apply. Studies withunseen control groups or where Hawthorne

effects are a worry will still be poor studies,even if they demonstrate changes in brainactivity in the target group. The futurepotential of neuroscience for educationrequires us to go beyond correlationaldemonstrations, to use neural markers as thebasis for hypothesis-driven work about howteaching and learning can change the brain.

Correspondence:Professor Usha GoswamiFaculty of Education,University of Cambridge,184 Hills Road,Cambridge CB2 2PQ.E-mail: [email protected]



ReferencesAnderson, M. (2001). Annotation: Conceptions of

Intelligence. Journal of Child Psychology andPsychiatry, 42, 287–298.

Bishop, D.V.M. & McArthur, G.M. (2004). Immaturecortical responses to auditory stimuli in specificlanguage impairment: Evidence from ERPs torapid tone sequences. Developmental Science 7(4),F11–F18.

Bradlow, A.R., Kraus, N., Nicol, T.G., McGee, T.J.,Cunningham, J., Zecker, S.G. & Carrell, T.D.(1999). Effects of lengthened formant transitionduration on discrimination and neural represen-tation of synthetic CV syllables by normal andlearning-disabled children. Journal of the AcousticSociety of America, 106, 2086–2096.

Cheour, M., Alho, K., Sainioi, K., Reinikainen, K.,Renlund, M., Aaltonen, O., Eerola, O. &Näätänen, R. (1997). The mismatch negativity tospeech sounds at the age of three months. Devel-opmental Neurophysiology, 13, 167–174.

Csépe, V., Szûcs, D. & Lukács, A. (2001). Does itmatter how we learn to read? (in Hungarian). In C.S.Pléh, J. László & A. és Oláh (Eds.),Learning, initiatives and creativity (pp.198–213).ELTE: Eötvös Kiadó.

Dehaene, S., Dehaene-Lambertz, G. & Cohen, L.(1998). Abstract representations of numbers inthe animal and human brain. Trends in Neuro-science, 21(8), 355–611.

Goswami, U., Thomson, J., Richardson, U.,Stainthorp, R., Hughes, D., Rosen S. & Scott, S.K.(2002). Amplitude envelope onsets and develop-mental dyslexia: A new hypothesis. Proceedings ofthe National Academy of Sciences, 99, 10911–10916.

Johnson, M.H. (1997). Developmental cognitive neuro-science. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Kraus, N., McGee, T.J., Carrell, T.D., Zecker, S.G.,Nicol, T.G. & Koch, D.B. (1996). Auditory neuro-physiologic responses and discrimination deficitsin children with learning problems. Science, 273,971–973.

Leppänen, P.H., Pihko, E., Eklund, K.M. & Lyytinen,H. (1999). Cortical responses of infants with andwithout a genetic risk for dyslexia: II. Groupeffects. Neuroreport, 10, 969–973.

Maurer, U., Bucher, K., Brem, S. & Brandeis, D.C.A.(2003). Altered responses to tone and phonememismatch in kindergartners at familial dyslexiarisk. Neuroreport, 14(17), 2245–2250.

Nicolson, R.I. & Fawcett, A.J. (1999). Developmentaldyslexia: The role of the cerebellum. Dyslexia: An International Journal of Research and Practice, 5,155–177.

Richardson, U., Leppänen, P.H.T., Leiwo, M. &Lyytinen, H. (2003). Speech perception ofinfants with high familial risk for dyslexia differat the age of six months. Developmental Neuropsy-chology, 23, 385–397.

Schulte-Körne, G., Deikmel, W., Bartling, J. &Remschmidt, H. (1998). Auditory processing anddyslexia: Evidence for a specific speechprocessing deficit. Neuroreport, 2, 337–340.

Szûcs, D. (in press). The early development of numerical skills. Tallal, P. (2004). Improving language and literacy is a

matter of time. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5,721–728.

Temple, E., Deutsch, G.K., Poldrack, R.A., Miller,S.L., Tallal, P., Merzenich, M.M. & Gabrieli, J.D.E.(2003). Neural deficits in children with dyslexiaameliorated by behavioral remediation: Evidencefrom functional MRI. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences, 100(5), 2860–2865.

Temple, E. & Posner, M.I. (1998). Brain mechanismsof quantity are similar in five-year-old childrenand adults. Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences, 95(13), 7836–7841.

Van der Lely, H., Rosen, R. & McClelland, A. (1998).Evidence for a grammar-specific deficit inchildren. Current Biology, 8, 1253–1258.

Wilkins, A.J., Bonnani, P., Porciatti, V. & Guerrini, R.(2004). Physiology of human photosensitivity.Epilepsia, 45 (Suppl. 1), 7–13.


Usha Goswami

S A CLASS TEACHER in a mainstreamjunior school, with a background in

psychology, I welcome the oppor-tunity to comment on both the potential forfuture application of neuroscience in educa-tion, and Goswami’s claim that ‘it is crucialfor educators to engage with neuroscience’.

Goswami argues that it is crucial foreducation to engage with neurosciencedespite its currently limited contribution.She argues that it may not be long beforeparents concerned about their child’sprogress are offered the facility to use a brainscan for assessment purposes. She alsoasserts that in the future these assessmentsmight provide data which schools areexpected to act upon. I agree that ‘parentchoice’ is already (increasingly) being exer-cised by parents insisting on investigationand diagnosis of children’s perceived lack ofprogress or Special Educational Needs.Parents are proactively seeking this fromoutside school. I have faced parents bringinga diagnosis which we were expected to acton, despite questioning it, that was laterretracted by the diagnosing professional.Other parents have both secured assess-ments and additional teaching programmeswith private companies. I have my doubtsabout some of these and their stated objec-tives or claims. Therefore, I strongly believethat if the future of neuroscience mayprovide similar options for parents, teachersneed to be aware of the developments fromthe beginning so they can make informeddecisions when presented with data.

Whilst the outlined basics of brain devel-opment and possibilities for the future areinteresting, Goswami acknowledges thatcurrently the impact on education is limited.Despite the current limitations I agree that

teachers should be aware of any developmentswhich may be applicable to education as theyhappen, so that schools can take an informedstance from the beginning as informationfilters into school. I have sat through meetingswith ‘experts’ introducing new initiatives andquestioned the psychological validity of theirstatements. Colleagues, without a backgroundin psychology, have listened to the same pres-entation and taken it as fact. Only if develop-ments in neuroscience are monitored byschools will they be able to correctly assessdata, programmes and initiatives.

In addition Goswami highlights the needfor educators to influence the future of thefield of neuroscience and the need forhypothesis driven research. Educators arethe individuals who spend the most timewith children and, therefore, have a role toplay in identifying some appropriate applica-tions of neuroscience. Also educators arethose who would need to implementchanges in practice to ensure the success ofinterventions to combat identified deviationsfrom normal development.

However, whilst I agree with Goswamithat education should take a critical stance,so that they can differentiate betweenprogrammes based on sound and erroneousneuroscience premises, this is easier todiscuss than implement. The people thatultimately may need to make decisions aboutprogrammes and implement assessments arein individual schools. As a class teacher Ioften feel isolated and unaware of develop-ments in psychology and education and withno easy mechanism to suggest my observa-tions to academics and researchers. Contactwith educational psychologists within schoolis so time pressured that only the children atthe ‘top of the list’ are seen by the psycho-


Open Dialogue peer review:

A response to GoswamiLaura Penrose

A

logist and no discussions of developments inpsychology are possible. As for articles injournals, newspapers or information cominginto school, often it is just another piece ofpaper or initiative which teachers have littletime to pay attention to, especially if neuro-science currently has a limited application totheir daily practice. In addition it is very diffi-cult for educators to take the initiative infilling the knowledge gap when the baselevel of neuroscience knowledge is so low.

Therefore, in summary, I strongly agreewith Goswami’s claim that it is crucial foreducation to engage with neuroscience but Ihighlight the problems which need to beaddressed in order for this to happen.Currently there is poor opportunity for two-way communication of ideas and knowledgebetween researchers in neuroscience andthe educators working with the children on a

daily basis. The key to getting educators toengage with neuroscience is ensuring asummary of key research is easily accessibleto teachers. Personal contact with educa-tional psychologists and magazines in schoolare possibilities. However, given the time andpaperwork pressures in schools, one possiblesolution is a centralised approach frompsychologists where researchers publishconcise, teacher friendly summaries of rele-vant research on one publicised website.

CorrespondenceLaura Penrose, MPhil (Psychology)Giles Junior School,Durham Road,Stevenage,Hertfordshire SG1 4JQ.Tel: 01438 353374E-mail: [email protected]


Laura Penrose

GOSWAMI’S EVOCATION OF a futuretime, when parents pay for cognitiveneuroscientific assessments and

demand action from their schools, provideseducators with much food for thought. Withcurrent advances in neuroscience, risingpublic interest in brain function and anincreasing number of educationalprogrammes that claim to be brain-based, anew relationship between neuroscience andeducation appears set to emerge.

Goswami’s review of what may be possibleis both cautionary and enthusiastic, as well asproviding some clues about how this inter-disciplinary area needs to develop. Themany entrepreneurial classroom solutionsthat claim to be brain-based are certainly onereason why education must engage morewith neuroscience. On the other hand, theirgenerally ill-informed nature is also indica-tive of the difficulty involved in coherentlymoving from ‘brain scan to lesson plan’.Perhaps made distrustful by these dubious‘brain-based’ approaches, many educatorsbelieve that neuroscience has nothing tooffer education (Davies, 2004). Yet there arealso many cases of how it has been enthusi-astically over-interpreted. For example,research that related increased synapticgrowth in rats with the complex environ-ments in which they were reared (e.g.Turner & Greenough, 1985) has frequentlybeen provided as evidence for the impor-tance of making early years environments asrich as possible. Less attention is generallygiven to later research showing increases insynapses of rats after experiencing complexenvironments as adults (Greenough et al.,1987). Also, given the laboratory-based defi-nition of a complex environment, it appearsthese studies may say more about the disad-

vantages of impoverished environments thanthe advantages of rich ones (Blakemore &Frith, 2005).

Despite such early difficulties betweenneuroscience and education, Goswamisucceeds in presenting special education asan area where neuroscience is nowimpacting positively. It is emphasised thatpresent techniques have clear limitations interms of what they can tell us, whereas newtechniques, or combinations of presentones, may tell us more. Although fMRI andERP have poor temporal and spatial resolu-tion respectively, it is suggested that a combi-nation of these two techniques may beparticularly helpful for providing educa-tional insights. Indeed, a two-participantpilot study that combined these techniquesto investigate dyslexia has already reportedencouraging results (Grunling et al., 2004).

Perhaps it is unsurprising that specialeducation research, where established rela-tionships exist between experimentalpsychology and practice, has been the firstarea to benefit from neuroscience. However,the perceived relevance of neuroscience ineducation extends beyond this realm. Inter-ventions and programmes of change inmainstream education are commonlypresented as brain-based and part of the roleof neuroscientists in education may be tocomment upon these, if not participate inproducing better ones. However, here inmainstream education, ideas produced fromwholly experimental investigations are lesslikely to directly influence classroom prac-tise. Rather, teachers often develop andapply strategies emerging from their own,and others’, context-based interpretations,intuitively using whatever concepts are avail-able that may be useful to a particular situa-



A response to GoswamiPaul Howard-Jones

tion. It must be said that the communicativepowers of entrepreneurs have been moresuccessful in feeding into this approach thanhave the efforts of scientists. Apart fromproviding fundamental knowledge aboutlearning and the brain, the future of neuro-science in education may depend uponscience involving itself more with this inter-pretative process. Brain-based educationalprogrammes should be sceptically examinedand they should be rejected if they are basedupon dubious scientific ideas. But howshould we develop ones that have a betterscientific basis? Without enough two-waydialogue to achieve this (Geeke & Cooper,2003), pseudo brain science may continue toplague mainstream educational thinkingwithout challenge.

One dilemma for scientists whenengaging in brain-based dialogue witheducators is deciding how to deal with anessentially ‘partial’ knowledge. Teachers arefairly familiar with this problem too. Theyknow that an examination result, an answerto a question in class, a pupil’s or parent’sperception of learning cannot, in them-selves, provide a firm conclusion aboutlearning. They do, however, all help to builda picture about the pupil’s progress and mayhelp suggest an appropriate strategy. Simi-larly, correlations between neural activityand behaviour may offer no certain conclu-sions about learning in isolation, but theycan further enhance existing pictures abouthow and whether learning is occurring, andthe effect of interventions upon it. The iden-tification and tracking of ‘neural markers’appears a natural progression for studies inneuroscience and education. Although suchtechniques may reveal that there is no onetype of ‘typical acquisition’, they willundoubtedly provide a more convincing andhelpful type of neuroscientific evidence thancorrelation studies.

Having agreed that understanding limita-tions is essential and that much will be gainedby further developing techniques andmethodologies, I feel more optimistic thanGoswami about what we can use current tech-

niques to look at. Even higher level and morecomplex processes with outcomes requiringsubjective appraisal, such as those involvingcreative tasks, can be the useful focus ofneuroscientific investigation (e.g. Howard-Jones et al., in press). Such investigations canagain involve modification of traditionalneuroscientific methodologies to improveecological validity without sacrificing scien-tific control, thus allowing both scientific andeducational design criteria to be met.

With Goswami, I believe that neuro-science is set to offer education manyinsights, and a new interdisciplinary areawith its own techniques and understandingwill emerge. Along the way, we may have tothink carefully about how to integrate theseinsights with other sources of knowledge,scientific and otherwise, to communicate anunderstanding which is as meaningful aspossible in educational terms.

CorrespondenceDr Paul Howard-JonesGraduate School of Education,35 Berkeley Square,Bristol BS8 1JA.E-mail: [email protected]


Paul Howard-Jones

ReferencesBlakemore, S.-J. and Frith, U. (2005). The learningbrain. Oxford: Blackwell.Davis, A. (2004) The credentials of brain-based

learning. Journal of Philosophy of Education,38(1), 21-35.

Geake, J. & Cooper, P. (2003). Cognitive neuro-science: Implications for education? WestminsterStudies in Education, 26(1), 7–20.

Greenhough, W.T., Black, J.E. & Wallace, C. S.(1987). Experience and brain development.Child Development, 58(3), 539–559.

Grunling, C., Ligges, M., Huonker, R., Klingert, M.Mentzel, H.-J., Rzanny, R., Kaiser, W.A., Witte, H.& Blanz, B. (2004). Journal of Neural Transmission,111, 951–969.

Howard-Jones, P.A., Blakemore, S.J., Samuel, E.,Summers, I.R. & Claxton, G. (in press). Semanticdivergence and creative story generation: AnfMRI investigation. Cognitive Brain Research.

Turner, A.M. & Greenhough, W.T. (1985). Differen-tial reading effects on rat visual cortex synapses.I. Synaptic and neuronal density and synapsesper neuron. Brain Research, 329, 195–203.

What can neuroscience tell us aboutlearning?

I SHARE USHA GOSWAMI’s concernsabout the way that findings from neuro-science are misinterpreted in educa-

tional contexts. This is not a newphenomenon. For many years it has beencommon to hear educators justifying partic-ular curriculum initiatives in terms of theneed to stimulate left and right brain devel-opment, despite the evidence that bothhemispheres are implicated in most intellec-tual activities. As knowledge about theprocess of synaptogenises became morewidely known it was interpreted to mean thatteachers should make explicit the connec-tions between concepts. The fact that it takesconsiderable time and engagement for theseconnections to become permanent was notembraced by the educational community.

Perhaps the most important message foreducators to take from current findings inneuroscience is that through the processes ofsynaptogenisis, myelinisation and pruning,the cerebral cortex self-organises in responseto learning activities (Pantev et al., 2003).Research in relation to the development ofmusical skills has demonstrated this process.When participants practised five-finger exer-cises on the piano over as short a period asfive days there was evidence of enlargementof the cortical representation area targetingthe long finger flexor and extensor muscles(Pascuel-Leone et al., 1994). Where practicecontinued over further weeks, the corticalmaps obtained after the weekend rest showeda small change from baseline with a tendencyto increase in size over the course of the study(Pascual-Leone, 2003). Over a four weekperiod there was evidence of the beginningsof the process of brain re-organisation.

For permanent and substantial reorgani-sation of brain functioning to take place aconsiderable time investment is necessary.Long years of instrumental music practiceare associated with an increase in neuronalrepresentation for the processing of thetones of the musical scale. The largestcortical representations are found in musi-cians who have been playing instruments forthe longest periods of time (Pantev et al.,2003). Changes are also specific to theparticular musical learning undertaken(Munte et al., 2003). Processing of pitch instring players is characterised by longersurveillance and more frontally distributedevent-related brain potentials attention.Drummers generate more complex memorytraces of the temporal organisation ofmusical sequences and conductors demon-strate greater surveillance of auditory space(Munte et al., 2003). Compared with non-musicians, string players have greatersomatosensory representations of fingeractivity, the amount of increase dependingon the age of starting to play (Pantev et al.,2003; Elbert et al., 1995; Karni et al., 1995). Itis clear that the brain develops in veryspecific ways in response to particularlearning activities and the extent of changedepends on the length of time engaged withlearning.

Particular methods of approachingproblem solving are also reflected in subse-quent brain activity. When students (aged 13to 15) were taught to judge symmetricallystructured musical phrases as balanced orunbalanced using traditional instructionsabout the differences (including verbalexplanations, visual aids, notation, verbalrules, playing of musical examples), orparticipating in musical experiences



A response to GoswamiSusan Hallam

Altenmuller, E.O., Gruhn, W., Parlitz, D. et al. (1997).Music learning produces changes in brain activa-tion patterns: A longitudinal DC-EEG-study unit.International Journal of Arts Medicine, 5, 28–34.

Altenmuller, E.O. (2003). How many music centresare in the brain? In I. Peretz & R. Zatorre (Eds.),The cognitive neuroscience of music (pp.346–356)Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Elbert, T., Pantev, C., Wienbruch, C. Rockstroh, B. &Taub, E. (1995). Increased cortical representa-tion of the fingers of the left hand in stringplayers. Science, 270, 305–306.

Karni, A, Meyer, G. Jezzard, P., Adams, M.M., Turner,R. & Ungerleider, L.G. (1995). fMRI evidence foradult motor cortex plasticity during motor skilllearning. Nature, 377, 155–158.

Maguire, E.A., Gadian, D.G., Johnsrude, I.S., Good,C.D., Ashburner, J., Frackowiak, R. & Frith, C.D.(2000). Navigation-related structural change inthe hippocampi of taxi drivers. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences of the United States ofAmerica, 97(8), 4398–4403.

Munte, T.F., Nager, W., Beiss, T. Schroeder, C. &Erne, S.N. (2003). Specialisation of thespecialised electrophysiological investigations inprofessional musicians. In G. Avanzini, C.Faienza, D. Minciacchi, L. Lopez & M. Majno(Eds.), The neurosciences and music (pp.112–117)New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

Pantev, C., Engelien, A., Candia, V. & Elbert, T.(2003). Representational cortex in musicians. In I. Peretz & R. Zatorre (Eds.), The cognitiveneuroscience of music (pp.382–395) Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Pascuel-Leone, A. (2003). The brain that makesmusic and is changed by it. In I. Peretz & R.Zatorre (Eds.), The cognitive neuroscience of music(pp.396–412) Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pascuele-Leone, A, Grafman, J. & Hallett, M. (1994).Modulation of cortical motor ouput maps duringdevelopment of implicit and explicit knowledge.Science, 263, 1287–1289.

(singing, playing, improvising or performingexamples from the musical literature),activity in different brain areas was observed.The music processing of the traditionallytrained group produced increased activationof the left fronto-temporal brain regions,probably reflecting inner speech and analy-tical, step-by-step processing. In contrast, themusically trained procedural group showedincreased activation of the right frontal andbilateral parieto-occipital lobes indicating amore global way of processing and visuo-spatial associations (Altenmuller et al., 1997).

Overall, the evidence suggests that thebrain substrates of processing reflect the‘learning biography’, of each individual(Altenmuller, 2003, p.349). As we engagewith different learning experiences overlong periods of time permanent changesoccur in the brain. These changes reflect notonly what we have learned but also how wehave learned. The message for educators isclear. Learners must have sufficient time toengage with particular learning activities toensure that learning occurs. This means

ensuring that the curriculum is not over-loaded, and that teaching and assessmentmethods motivate students and encourageactive and deep engagement with learningover long periods of time. While neuro-science may offer the possibility for the earlyidentification of specific difficulties inlearning this will be of little use unless waysof addressing them are also developed.Historically, early identification of problemsthrough psychological testing has led to thelabelling of learners but the necessarysupport and development of programmes toameliorate their difficulties has not alwaysfollowed.

CorrespondenceProfesor Susan HallamLifelong Education and InternationalDevelopment,Institute of Education,University of London,20 Bedford Way,London WC1H 0AL.E-mail: [email protected]


Susan Hallam

References

IWRITE THIS RESPONSE from apersonal perspective and positioning as aclassroom teacher in an all ages

special school for children and youngpeople with severe to profound and multiplelearning difficulties. Having not thoughtmuch about neuroscience research, despiteits obvious relevance to the context in whichI work, I was interested to read UshaGoswami’s article and, indeed, spurred intoreading, thinking and talking withcolleagues about the issues raised in thearticle. Particularly inspiring were the possi-bilities for the future that neurosciencecould offer special education. The potentialfor using neuroscience to identify the causalorigins of developmental language disorderssuch as dyslexia and specific languageimpairment seems clear. The benefits ofsuch research would be the implementationof more appropriate interventions, at theright times, for children with developmentallanguage disorders that would enable themto access a more typical developmental path.

The benefits of a neuroscience approachto understanding the development ofnumeracy and literacy in typically devel-oping children are also clearly illustrated inthe article. It seems clear, however, that aneuroscience approach also has much tooffer to the understanding of the develop-ment of numeracy and literacy for individ-uals with severe learning difficulties, forwhom, in most cases, trajectories of typicaldevelopment have only limited application.Children described as having severe learningdifficulties in the United Kingdom are thosewho show significantly below average intel-lectual functioning. Many, furthermore,have significant communication difficulties,may be non-speaking and may have other

physical and sensory disabilities whichrestrict their ability to respond to or interactwith their environments. As children in thisvery small population (even in comparisonto the total population of people with specialeducational needs) display very differentindividual characteristics and capabilities,research on learning and developmentwithin this population is often difficult and,therefore, very sparse. As a result, manypupils in special schools at present follow adevelopmental curriculum where learningand progress is measured against typicallearning milestones (see, for example, theQCA’s ‘p-levels’), milestones which do notreflect their individual and often atypicaldevelopmental paths.

The vision of a future, therefore, whereteachers have access to individual neurosci-entific assessments for their pupils withsevere learning difficulties is indeedappealing. At last teachers would be able totell which pupils in their class are actuallybenefiting from learning the count sequence(usually up to no more than 10 in myschool), or which pupils ‘get’ numberconcepts and which don’t and perhaps neverwill. Where literacy and language develop-ment are concerned, the neuroscienceapproach could prove even more importantin my particular teaching context. It couldilluminate whether individuals who do notdevelop speech (due to dyspraxia, forexample, which may affect all their motormovement) still develop receptive languagein the normal expected sequence even whenthey are not able to show those languageskills expressively. It could illuminatewhether the level of interaction and commu-nication that a child can demonstrate isconsistent with their motor development,



A response to GoswamiFathima Khan

as is commonly believed, or whether it ishampered by the child’s physical disabilityand therefore not indicative of their cogni-tive or internal thought and linguistic devel-opment. The implications of these questionsfor pedagogical issues, concerned withlearning, and for curriculum issuesconcerned with inclusion, relevance andmeaning are far-reaching indeed.

While individual neuroscientific assess-ments remain, for the time being, in therealm of the future, an important task forneuroscience, at present, it seems to me,would be to illuminate atypical developmentin children with cognitive dysfunctions dueto genetically-based developmental disor-ders. It is these children, after all, that make

up the larger part of the population ofchildren with severe and profound learningdifficulties. Such a project would enableteachers to devise more meaningful and rele-vant individual education programmes forpupils with severe learning difficulties oncethey have a clearer idea of how the curriculathey offer makes a difference to the brains ofthe children they teach.

CorrespondenceFathima Khan Faculty of Education,University of Cambridge,184 Hills Road,Cambridge CB2 2PQ.E-mail: [email protected]


Fathima Khan

I AM DELIGHTED TO have been asked torespond to Usha Goswami’s paper, which,in my view, makes an important contribu-

tion to a very significant area. In the currentsituation, where a significant proportion ofteachers and schools are enthusiasticallyadopting ‘brain-based’ pedagogies, almost allof which are entirely bogus, voices such asGoswami’s clearly setting out the currentlimited state of scientific knowledge, are verywelcome. The paper emphasises the carerequired in designing neuroscientific experi-ments and in drawing conclusions fromthem, particularly in relation to education.

However, I am with Goswami wholeheart-edly in rejecting the arguments, notablypromoted by John Bruer, that cognitiveneuroscience is irredeemably reductionistand is never likely to make a useful contribu-tion to educational questions. In this paperand elsewhere, she has ably demonstratedthe clear potential of neuroscientificresearch to increase our understandings inrelation to literacy problems. At the recentLaunch Conference for the Centre forNeuroscience in Education at Cambridge,papers by John Duncan on intelligence, EricTaylor on ADHD, Uta Frith on autism andsocial cognition, and Denes Szucs onnumeracy, just to select a few, clearly indi-cated similar potential for increased under-standing in a range of important areas foreducation.

We do, of course, need to be vigilant inour critical awareness, and to beware of theuse of pseudo-scientific evidence, or theovergeneral application of particular data tojustify favoured positions. Nevertheless,there are good reasons for believing thatneuroscientific evidence can contribute tounderstandings about teaching and

learning. Research at the behavioural levelin education is notoriously difficult; thedemands of ecological validity make the kindof control needed to establish clear causeand effect relationships almost impossible toachieve. Further, the outcomes of a partic-ular intervention may only manifest them-selves at the level of performance over aconsiderable time-period. The establishmentof neural markers for key aspects of develop-ment, however, raises the possibility ofproviding rigorous and early indications ofbeneficial cognitive change.

There is much talk of establishinggenuine dialogue between the neuroscien-tific and educational communities. For thisto happen, neuroscientists need to informeducators about relevant research in cogni-tive neuroscience – and Goswami’s papermakes an excellent contribution to this –and educators must start helping toconstruct the agenda for the neuroscientists.I would like to make a small initial contribu-tion to this latter enterprise by highlightingtwo potentially fruitful areas.

First, in early years education currentlythere is an important debate internationallyabout the appropriate age at which childrenshould enter formal schooling, and begin tolearn to read, do formal maths, etc. In theUK, for example, recent policy has beenfounded on the belief that the earlier westart children learning to read the better,while in many parts of continental Europe,requiring children under the age of six orseven to start learning to read is regarded asunhelpful and inappropriate. Put simply, thecrucially important question is whether,particularly in the first few years of life, thedeveloping brain becomes ‘ready’ for partic-ular kinds of learning at particular stages or



A response to GoswamiDavid Whitebread

ages. In the UK, are we asking children tolearn in some areas before the brain struc-tures which will make this possible have beenformed? Within current neuroscientific liter-ature there are a number of areas of investi-gation which seem likely to be able to informthis debate. The work by Mark Johnson andothers related to the interactive develop-ment of regional specialisation , and studiesof the development of mylenisation in theyoung brain, leading to increased speed insome areas of brain function, bear cruciallyon this kind of debate.

Second, a considerable groundswell ofresearch in recent years has indicated thecrucial significance of self-regulation ormetacognition for the development of indi-viduals as learners. We now have fairly strongevidence that this is a key area of deficiencyin many children with learning difficulties. Itis also well-established that metacognitivetraining is highly effective with suchchildren. Early research in this areasuggested that metacognition was a late-developing aspect of cognitive functioning,with the first signs emerging around the ages

of seven or eight years. My own research andthat of others, however, has more recentlyestablished that these processes can beclearly discerned in children as young asthree years of age. Neuroscientific research,perhaps related to established neuralmarkers in the frontal lobes for aspects ofexecutive functioning, may well help us tounderstand the early emergence of thesevital aspects of cognition. The possibility ofearly detection of atypical development andmetacognitive remediation offers excitingopportunities which could be highly benefi-cial for children who currently experiencedifficulties in learning in school. Moregenerally, such research is clearly required ifwe are to move towards genuinely evidence-based ‘brain-friendly’ educational practices.

CorrespondenceDr David WhitebreadFaculty of Education,University of Cambridge,184 Hills Road,Cambridge CB2 2PQ.E-mail: [email protected]


David Whitebread

I AM GRATEFUL FOR the thoughtful andconstructive comments in reply to mytarget article. Although the future

scenario that I depicted of a parent arrivingin school clutching a brain scan wasintended to provoke debate, the responsesof Penrose, Whitebread and Howard-Jonesshow that this vignette was not as far-fetchedas may be supposed. As also pointed out bythe commentators, it is not merely parentswho may be gullible to the claims of ‘brain-based’ learning programmes. Penrose’spoint about the plausibility of apparent‘experts’ when the teacher lacks relevantknowledge is critical. She comments thatcolleagues untrained in psychology willlisten to a presentation by an ‘expert’ andaccept it as fact. Howard-Jones notes that thecommunication skills of neural entrepre-neurs are often far superior to those ofneuroscientists, and that the former there-fore have had far more influence than thelatter. We all seem to be in agreement that itis important for educators to be informed, sothat they can take a critical stance and avoidaccepting as ‘fact’ what are possibly (asWhitebread describes) entirely bogus ‘brain-based’ pedagogies.

However, the point that it is difficult forteachers themselves to keep abreast of devel-opments in educational neuroscience is well-made (see Penrose). Teachers do notnecessarily have the time to take the initia-tive in filling the knowledge gap. In my view,it is lecturers in University Departments ofEducation who need to take the initiativehere. Although Howard-Jones suggests thatscientists may need to involve themselvesmore in communication, my own view is thatthe job of the scientists is to do high-qualityscience. They should report their findings

with clarity, but they should not themselvesenthuse about particular studies or ideasdirectly to teachers – it may be too early todraw firm conclusions, or (as noted byWhitebread) particular data may be used tojustify favoured positions. What is needed isa critical and informed interface betweenneuroscientists and teachers. Academics inDepartments of Education seem ideallyplaced to provide this interface.

Another initiative could be taken bythose teaching trainee teachers and by thoseteaching on education degrees. Some neuro-science and more psychology needs to findits way into our educational programmes forteachers. So much more is known now aboutchildhood cognitive development than wasknown even 20 years ago, and yet much ofthis knowledge is not taught to trainees noravailable as part of continuing professionaldevelopment courses. Nevertheless, manyteachers are willing to invest time and energyin keeping abreast of developments in thecognitive and brain sciences. Our recentLaunch Conference for the Centre forNeuroscience in Education in Cambridge(July 2005, mentioned by Whitebread)attracted nearly 250 teachers and educators.Their enthusiastic feedback about thepresentations made by neuroscientistsoverviewing certain fields of study suggeststhat the interest is there. In fact, the notionof one centralised website (suggested byPenrose) is also already being considered.The National Education Research Forum(NERF) are acutely aware of the difficultiesfaced by teachers who want independentevaluations of various interventions, brain-based or otherwise. They hope to provideone central site via their website (www.nerf-uk.org) where teachers can access informa-


Open Dialogue:

Author’s response to peer commentaryUsha Goswami

tion about various school-based interven-tions, just as doctors can access the latestinformation about clinical trials of variousdrugs.

The area of special education is high-lighted by both Khan and Howard-Jones,and I agree with their views concerning thepotential here for contributions from neuro-science. Khan is correct to highlight theunique case of children with severe learningdifficulties. About 40 per cent of individualswith IQ below 70 have a medical backgroundcondition, and this rises to 80 per cent forindividuals with IQ below 50 (Gillberg &Soderstrom, 2003). This has led to the emer-gence of brain-based theories about causa-tion linked to the disproportionate numberof males who present with different medicalconditions. For example, it has beensuggested that dysregulation of the normaldevelopmental trajectory of myelination mayplay a role in some disorders (Bartzokis,2004). Myelin sheaths form around theaxons (nerve fibres) of brain cells andincrease neural transmission speed. Myelinalso enables widely distributed neuralnetworks to fire at the same time, which isnecessary for higher-level skills likereasoning and memory. Developmentalabnormalities in the amount/thickness ofmyelin impair neural processing, and wouldbe expected to particularly affect late-devel-oping brain structures such as the frontal,temporal and parietal lobes. These are thecritical areas for language, mathematics,planning and reasoning. Greater under-standing of cause and effect in basic brain

development in affected individuals mayindeed help to explain the diversity of indi-vidual characteristics and capabilities in thepopulation of individuals with severelearning difficulties. For example, it iscertainly possible that children who do notspeak can develop normal receptivelanguage skills, indeed, individual such caseshave already been documented (e.g. Cossu,2003).

Hallam concentrates on how the cerebralcortex self-organises in response to learningactivities, a theme also prominent in therecent book by Blakemore and Frith (2005)on neuroscience and education. However,Hallam’s examples are drawn from the fieldof musical cognition. It is important torecognise that music is a special case oflearning, in that motor ability is critical tothe level of expertise attained. Motor abilitydoes not play a specific role in the acquisi-tion of more familiar classroom skills likeliteracy, numeracy and metacognition.Learners may need time to engage with thecurriculum, but neuroscientific studies ofmusic learning per se do not prove this to bethe case. Nevertheless, Hallam’s point aboutthe early identification of children withspecial needs is well-taken. It is indeed oflittle use to identify these children if nothingis then offered to ameliorate their difficul-ties. I am with Khan in being optimistic. Withher, my hope is that neuroscience will even-tually enable the implementation of moreappropriate interventions at the right timesfor the children concerned, therebyimproving upon the current state of the art.


Usha Goswami

Bartzokis, G. (2004). Quadratic trajectories of brainmyelin content: Unifying construct for neuropsy-chiatric disorders. Neurobiology of Ageing, 25,49–62.

Blakemore, S.J. & Frith, U. (2005). The learning brain:Lessons for education. Oxford: Blackwell.

Cossu, G. (2003). The role of output speech inliteracy acquisition: Evidence from congenitalanarthria. Reading & Writing, 16, 99–122.

Gillberg, C. & Soderstrom, H. (2003). Learningdisability. The Lancet, 362, 811–821.

References

OVER THE LAST 20 years there hasbeen an increased interest inexploring the worries experienced by

pupils both at school in their life outsideschool. There is little doubt that pupils facea variety of concerns, ranging from worriesabout their personal appearance, the anxietygenerated by examinations, being bullied atschool, and worries about their futureemployment prospects. Studies of theworries experienced by pupils and how theyattempt to cope with such worries have nowbeen published in many countries: e.g.Australia (Lewis & Frydenberg, 2002),England (Denscombe, 2000), Israel(Milgram & Toubiana, 1999), Norway(Torsheim & Wold, 2001), South Korea(Kyriacou & Kim, 2004), Taiwan (Li, 2001)and the US (Pomerantz et al., 2002).

The general picture that emerges fromsuch studies for pupils during the secondaryschool years is a complex one, since muchdepends on pupils’ particular circumstances(Frydenberg, 1997; McNamara, 2000; Kyri-acou, 2003). For example, facing a lifethreatening illness would clearly be a majorsource of stress for those pupils in such asituation, but as such situations are fairlyrare, this would not feature as an item whichmost pupils worry about. We, therefore, haveto bear in mind that the worries most

commonly reported may not represent theseverest sources of stress. Taken as a whole,however, most secondary school aged pupilsworry about their future, examination pres-sures and their general academic progress atschool. They worry about their relationshipswith other pupils, including general friend-ship as well as more romantic engagements,and also worry about being bullied at school.Pupils also worry about aspects of their homelife, particularly having conflicts with theirparents. Many pupils also have particularworries about their parents arguing a lot,and coping with the illness and/or death ofa parent or other close relative.

Whilst worry and stress can be consideredto be negative states, it is important to bearin mind that the generation of such statescan often be adaptive, for example, in ener-gising pupils to revise before an importantexamination, although high levels of thesestates for some pupils can be maladaptive,such as when a high level of test anxiety leadsto the pupil’s mind going blank (e.g. seeBoekaerts, 1995, for an analysis of how worryand stress can generate either an adaptive ora maladaptive response for pupils).

The present study was undertaken toexplore the worries facing secondary schoolaged pupils in Taiwan and how they attemptto cope with their worries. The particular


Individual Paper:

The worries of junior high school pupils in TaiwanChris Kyriacou & Chun-Fang Yang

This study used a questionnaire to explore the worries of 120 junior high school pupils in Taiwan and thecoping strategies they use to cope with such worries. The data indicate that about a quarter of the respon-dents find being a pupil very or extremely stressful. They are particularly worried about tests and exami-nations, whether they will be able to gain entry to a good senior high school, and whether they will get agood job in the future. The most frequent coping strategies reported involved a mix of strategies: emotioncontrol, problem solving, and social support. The study provides further evidence of the high level of worrycommonly experienced by secondary school aged pupils in many countries.

impetus for this study came from a risingconcern in Taiwan that adolescents face highlevels of academic pressure to do well inschool, and this is particularly acute withrespect to the examinations taken at the endof junior high school in order to gain entryinto the senior high school or vocationalschool of their choice. This study in partsought to explore how such academic pres-sures would compare with other worriesexperienced by Taiwanese pupils. The studydoes not, however, attempt to test a specifichypothesis regarding whether the overalllevel of stress for Taiwanese students ishigher than that reported in other countries;rather the study was designed to be anexploratory survey conducted in a Taiwanesesetting. The small size of the sample and thefact that no claims are made regarding itsrepresentativeness for the pupils at thisparticular school, also counsels againstdrawing firm conclusions.

A study by Li (2001) based on a survey ofstress amongst 455 junior high school pupilsin Taiwan found that the most frequentreported worry was ‘there are too many tests inthe school’. This is in line with a number ofsurveys conducted in other countries. Forexample, a survey by Gallagher and Millar(1996) of 3983 secondary school pupils inNorthern Ireland found that the mostfrequently reported worry was ‘whether I willpass my exam’. A study of 116 secondaryschool pupils in South Korea reported by Kyri-acou and Kim (2004) found that the mostfrequently reported source of stress was ‘thestress of working hard’. Finally, Denscombe(2000) in a study of 1648 year 10 and 11 pupilsin England reported that taking GCSEs consti-tuted a major source of stress, with its mixtureof examination and course work pressures andtheir perception that their success or other-wise in their GCSEs constituted a fatefulmoment in their life trajectories. As a whole, itappears that the stress generated by examina-tions and tests towards the end of thesecondary school years is a major source ofstress for pupils in many countries.

Three studies in Taiwan (Jiang, 1991; Li,

2001; Wu, 1996) indicate that older pupilsduring the secondary school years appear toexperience more stress than young pupils.Finally, five studies in Taiwan looking atcoping strategies (Jiang, 1991; Jiang, 1993;Li, 2001; Su, 1998; Wu, 1996) indicate thatboys are more likely than girls to useproblem solving and positive thinking strate-gies, whilst girls are more likely than boys touse self-blame, to resign themselves to thesituation, and to discuss problems withothers. These findings are also in line withresearch findings in other countries (Kyriacou, 2003).

Research design and data collectionThe main aim of this study was to explorethe worries reported by a sample of juniorhigh school pupils in Taiwan and how theyattempted to cope with such worries. Thequestionnaire asked pupils to firstly rate howstressful they found being a junior highschool student on a five-point scale labelledextremely stressful, very stressful, moderatelystressful, mildly stressful, and not at allstressful; and secondly, to rate their ability tocope with stress on a five-point scale labelledcertainly better than most pupils, probablybetter than most pupils, about average, prob-ably not as well as most pupils, and certainlynot as well as most pupils.

Pupils were then asked to rate 50 sourcesof life stress on a five-point scale labelled0=Not encountered in the last six months; orif encountered: 1=Not worried, 2=A bitworried, 3=Quite worried, and 4=Veryworried. This list comprised life stress eventsin four main categories: home, relationships,school, and future identity, which was drawnup after considering research studies onpupils’ worries (Kyriacou & Kim, 2004; Li,2001; McNamara, 2000; Milgram &Toubiana, 1999; Millar et al., 1993; Su, 1998;Wu, 1996).

Finally, the questionnaire asked pupils torate the frequency of using 30 coping strate-gies on a four-point scale labelled 0=Never,1=Sometimes, 2=Often, and 3=Always. Thislist was drawn up after considering previous


Chris Kyriacou & Chun-Fang Yang

research on pupils’ use of coping strategies(Lewis & Frydenberg, 2002; Li, 2001; McNa-mara, 2000; Robson et al., 1995; Su, 1998;Wu, 1996).

The questionnaire was designed inEnglish and then translated into Chinese.The Chinese version was distributed to 130junior high school pupils midway throughyear 9 (their final year at the school) in threeclasses at a school where the second authorused to be a school teacher. The school waslocated in the urban area of Yunghe, a townof approximately 231,000 people in TaipeiCounty, which is in the northern part ofTaiwan. This school is regarded as a distin-guished school in Taipei, as pupils at thisschool have a good record of achievement inthe entrance examinations for entry tosenior high schools. Because of its goodreputation, many parents want to send theirchildren to this school, and it has nowbecome one of the bigger junior highschools in Taipei, with 123 classes, about 300teachers, and around 4600 pupils.

The questionnaires were distributed by thesecond author’s former colleagues andcompleted in class time. One-hundred-and-twenty completed questionnaires werereturned. Ten pupils who had not finishedcompleting the questionnaire during classtime where allowed to finish the questionnaireat home, but failed to return the question-naire. The response rate was thus 92 per cent.

As the data were all collected at one

school, and this school can be regarded ashaving a high ability intake with a strongacademic ethos, this study must be regardedas exploratory.

Findings and discussionThe questionnaires were completed by 58male and 62 female pupils, aged 14 or 15years, attending their third year in a juniorhigh school.

Table 1 gives the percentage responses tothe general question on the stress of being ajunior high school pupil (N=120). Using afive-point response scale scored 1 (not at allstressful) to 5 (extremely stressful) respec-tively yielded a mean of 3.13 (s.d.=0.74).About a quarter of the respondents ratedbeing a junior high school pupil as very orextremely stressful. This is generally in linewith the findings typically reported in otherstudies of pupil stress for this age group ofpupils (Kyriacou, 2003).

Table 2 gives the percentage responses tothe general question of how they rate theiroverall ability to cope (N=120). Using a five-point response scale scored 1 (certainly notas well as most pupils) to 5 (certainly betterthan most pupils) respectively yielded amean of 3.10 (s.d.=0.69). Most of the respon-dents rated their coping ability as aboutaverage, with very few pupils rating it ascertainly better or certainly not as well asmost pupils.

Table 3 gives the pupils’ rating of life


The worries of junior high school pupils in Taiwan

Not at all Mildly Moderately Very Extremelystressful stressful stressful stressful stressful

0.8 14.2 60.8 19.2 5.0

Table 1: Pupils’ rating of how stressful they find being a junior high school student(percentages, N=120).

Certainly not Probably not About Probably Certainlyas well as as well as average better than better than

most pupils most pupils most pupils most pupils

2.5 10.8 61.7 24.2 0.8

Table 2: Pupils’ rating of their coping ability (percentages, N=120).

Life stress event 0 1 2 3 4 Mean s.d.47 I worry that I can’t enter a good senior 6.7 10.0 35.0 15.8 32.5 2.57 1.22high school45 I can’t achieve my expectations 6.7 9.2 44.2 17.5 22.5 2.40 1.1348 I worry that I can’t find a good job after 15.8 16.7 20.8 15.0 31.7 2.30 1.46I graduate33 I do less well than before in tests 10.8 19.2 29.2 19.2 21.7 2.21 1.2835 I’m not interested in some specific subjects 10.8 23.3 32.5 15.0 18.3 2.06 1.2434 My results are compared with those of others 12.5 23.3 32.5 15.0 16.7 2.00 1.2542 I can’t correct my bad habits 5.8 27.5 42.5 12.5 11.7 1.96 1.0541 I doubt my ability 9.2 28.3 36.7 11.7 14.2 1.93 1.1543 I don’t know how to arrange my time 10.0 22.5 42.5 15.8 9.2 1.91 1.0731 There are too many tests in the school 7.6 26.1 42.9 14.3 9.2 1.91 1.0336 I have problems in understanding some 18.3 22.5 31.7 12.5 15.0 1.83 1.29specific subjects6 My parents expect too much of me 19.2 23.3 37.5 14.2 5.8 1.64 1.1229 The school’s discipline is too strict 22.5 32.5 20.8 7.5 16.7 1.63 1.3544 I don’t know what is in my interests 20.8 30.8 26.7 12.5 9.2 1.58 1.217 I have a conflict with my parents 17.5 36.7 32.5 7.5 5.8 1.47 1.0546 There is no goal to my life 28.3 24.2 30.0 9.2 8.3 1.45 1.2232 There is too much homework to do 17.5 34.2 38.3 6.7 3.3 1.44 0.9639 I feel bored and have nothing to do 16.7 41.7 30.0 5.8 5.8 1.42 1.0238 My teachers punish me 10.0 50.0 30.8 6.7 2.5 1.41 0.8516 Our class has very competitive climate 22.5 32.5 31.7 8.3 5.0 1.40 1.08between peers8 I have a conflict with my brother or sister 26.7 33.3 22.5 10.8 6.7 1.37 1.182 My parents have a series of quarrels 23.3 29.2 36.7 9.2 1.7 1.36 0.995 My parents over control me 26.7 31.7 27.5 8.3 5.8 1.35 1.1340 I worry about my appearance 21.7 41.7 24.2 5.0 7.5 1.35 1.104 My parents have different views on discipline 25.8 36.7 27.5 8.3 1.7 1.23 0.98from each other37 My teachers expect too much of me 26.7 37.5 26.7 5.8 3.3 1.21 1.0122 I like someone but I don’t know what he or 36.7 33.3 20.8 4.2 5.0 1.07 1.09she thinks10 My parents don’t give me enough 45.0 24.2 23.3 2.5 5.0 0.98 1.11pocket money50 I suffer from ill health 38.3 35.0 20.8 5.0 0.8 0.95 0.9321 I don’t know how to communicate with the 42.5 35.0 11.7 6.7 4.2 0.95 1.09opposite sex49 Menses occurs for girls or nocturnal emission 31.7 51.7 12.5 0.8 3.3 0.92 0.88occurs for boys30 I worry that school violence could happen 50.8 24.2 20.8 2.5 1.7 0.80 0.96to me19 I feel lonely and have no close friends 54.2 21.7 17.5 4.2 2.5 0.79 1.0317 I have difficulties getting along with my 44.2 35.0 19.2 0.8 0.8 0.79 0.83classmates



Table 3: Pupils’ rating of life stress events occurring in the last six months(in descending order of mean scores, N=120;

Scoring: 0=Not encountered; 1=Not worried; 2=A bit worried;3=Quite worried; 4=Very worried).

Life stress event 0 1 2 3 4 Mean s.d.24 I don’t like someone and don’t know how 58.3 17.5 16.7 5.0 2.5 0.75 1.06

to reject him or her14 Death or serious illness of relatives 59.2 15.8 18.3 5.0 1.7 0.74 1.0312 My parents oppose me having a boyfriend 55.8 27.5 8.3 5.0 3.3 0.72 1.03

or a girlfriend20 I have a quarrel or fight with my friends 50.0 31.7 15.8 1.7 0.8 0.71 0.8513 My parents don’t like my friends 61.7 13.3 20.0 4.2 0.8 0.69 0.9811 My family has financial difficulties 59.2 20.8 12.5 7.5 0 0.68 0.9627 My teachers oppose me having a boyfriend 56.7 26.7 10.8 4.2 1.7 0.67 0.94

or a girlfriend18 I feel myself to be pushed out from a group 52.5 30.8 13.3 3.3 0 0.67 0.839 My parents show blatant favouritism 60.8 19.2 15.8 2.5 1.7 0.65 0.9423 I like someone but he or she rejects me 72.5 16.7 5.8 1.7 3.3 0.46 0.9315 I move to a new school and am separated 78.3 8.3 10.8 1.7 0.8 0.38 0.81

from previous friends28 Death or serious illness of close friends 83.3 8.3 5.0 3.3 0 0.28 0.7125 I become estranged for my friends because 81.7 14.2 3.3 0 0.8 0.24 0.59

of my boyfriend or girlfriend26 I have broken off a steady relationship with 81.7 14.2 3.3 0.8 0 0.23 0.54

my boyfriend or girlfriend3 My parents have a problem with the police 88.3 6.7 2.5 0.8 1.7 0.20 0.68

involving a court appearance1 My parents get separated or divorce 91.7 2.5 3.3 2.5 0 0.16 0.59



Table 3: Pupils’ rating of life stress events occurring in the last six months(continued)

Coping strategy 0 1 2 3 Mean s.d.25 Do leisure activities, such as taking exercise, 3.3 13.3 45.0 38.3 2.18 0.78watching TV24 Think about happy things to make myself 7.5 31.7 35.0 25.8 1.79 0.91feel better1 Accept the reality 4.2 40.0 33.3 22.5 1.74 0.856 Tell myself not to be nervous and relax 4.2 36.7 42.5 16.7 1.71 0.792 Think about the problem carefully and how 5.0 39.2 38.3 17.5 1.68 0.81to solve it10 Discuss the issue with my friends or classmates 10.0 30.8 41.7 17.5 1.66 0.8817 Want to be left alone 8.3 43.3 26.7 21.7 1.61 0.917 Comfort myself that this is not the worse 15.8 35.0 32.5 16.7 1.50 0.95situation16 Lose my interest in everything 17.5 35.0 28.3 19.2 1.49 0.998 Tell myself that such experience can make me 16.7 37.5 26.7 19.2 1.48 0.98more mature5 Imagine that marvellous changes will happen 10.0 45.8 30.0 14.2 1.48 0.8526 Find something to eat 18.3 39.2 21.7 20.8 1.45 1.0127 Go to sleep 15.0 42.5 25.8 16.7 1.44 0.9421 Be irritable 19.2 40.0 26.7 14.2 1.35 0.954 Analyse the source of the stress 16.7 44.2 27.5 11.7 1.34 0.8918 Put problems aside temporarily and do not think 15.0 51.7 22.5 10.8 1.29 0.85about it20 Sulk 21.7 42.5 24.2 11.7 1.25 0.9315 Try to forget or ignore it 17.5 51.7 20.0 10.8 1.24 0.8614 Find an excuse or other reasons to explain 12.5 59.2 25.0 3.3 1.19 0.68something away12 Talk to someone who has encountered a 29.2 40.0 23.3 7.5 1.09 0.90similar situation19 Delay dealing with problems as long as possible 28.3 48.3 14.2 9.2 1.04 0.899 Talk to my parents or elderly relatives 32.5 41.7 14.9 10.8 1.04 0.9530 Do nothing but let things take their natural course 34.2 41.7 16.7 7.5 0.97 0.903 Read some relevant articles or books to find 31.7 45.0 18.3 5.0 0.96 0.83a solution29 Improve my time management skills 25.8 54.2 18.3 1.7 0.95 0.7113 Deny problems exist 55.0 35.8 5.8 3.3 0.57 0.7522 Vent my anger by throwing something 58.3 30.0 7.5 4.2 0.57 0.8011 Ask for help from teachers or professional 63.3 30.8 3.3 2.5 0.45 0.68counsellors28 Pray to God 73.3 25.0 1.7 0 0.28 0.4823 Release worry by resorting to smoking, drinking 90.8 4.2 2.5 2.5 0.16 0.58alcohol, or using drugs



Table 4: Pupils’ rating of the frequency of using coping strategies(in descending order of mean scores, N=120;

Scoring: 0=Never; 1=Sometimes; 2=Often; 3=Always.

stress events occurring in the last six months(in descending order of mean scores). Theitems with the three highest mean scores allconcern worries about the immediate future:worrying about whether they can enter agood senior high school (33 per cent of therespondents said they were ‘very worried’ bythis), not achieving their expectations (23per cent) and not finding a good job afterthey graduate (32 per cent). It is notsurprising that year 9 pupils who would betaking their entrance examinations later inthe academic year reported that notentering a good senior high school was theirmajor worry. Two items which explicitlymention tests (‘I do less well than before intests’, and ‘There are too many tests in theschool’) both feature highly.

Table 4 gives pupils’ rating of thefrequency of using coping strategies (indescending order of mean scores). Engagingin leisure activities received the highestmean score (38 per cent of pupils said they‘always’ did this). Frydenberg and Lewis(1999) divided coping strategies into threeareas: problem-solving (working hard anddealing head on with the problem), refer-ence to others (seeking help, advice andsocial support) and non-productive coping(emotion control, mental reappraisal andmental distancing techniques). Looking atthe items which feature with the highestmean scores, some of these fall into the cate-gory of non-productive coping (e.g. ‘thinkabout other happy things and make myselfbetter’), some involve problem-solving (e.g.‘think about the problem carefully and howto solve it’) and some involve reference toothers (e.g. ‘discuss the issue with my friendsor classmates’). One of the coping skills mostfrequently covered in stress workshopsaimed at helping secondary school pupils todevelop their coping skills deals withimproving pupils’ time management skills; itis interesting to note that for this sample thisitem has a mean score sixth from the bottom(with only two per cent of pupils reportingthat they ‘always’ did this). There were twoitems were a t-test indicated a significant

gender difference. Female pupils were morelikely to discuss the issue with friends orclassmates (p<0.05), and more likely to go tosleep (p<0.01). These two differences are inline with previous research in Taiwan indi-cating a tendency for female pupils to bemore likely than male pupils to seek socialsupport and to resign themselves to the situ-ation (Jiang, 1991; Jiang, 1993; Li, 2001; Su,1998; Wu, 1996).

No attempt is made here to explore theassociation between the frequency of usingcoping strategies and the reported level ofstress, since a possible relationship betweenthese two variables is hard to interpret. Ifone found there was a high correlationbetween the use of a particular copingstrategy and the level of reported stress, itcould be argued, on the one hand, that thisindicates that particular strategy is effective(that’s why it is being used frequently bypupils who report higher stress) or, on theother hand, that this indicates that particularstrategy is ineffective (since higher stress isbeing reported by pupils using this strategy).The link between stress and coping is acomplex one. The study here simply soughtto explore the strategies pupils tended touse, and not whether they are effective.

ConclusionThis exploratory study gives a useful indica-tion of the major sources of worry for asample of Taiwanese junior high schoolpupils and how they attempt to cope withthese. The findings support the view that thepressures caused by the entrance examina-tion for entry into a senior high school is amajor source of worry, together withconcerns about not achieving their expecta-tions and not finding a good job. The mostfrequently used coping strategies involve amixture of emotion control strategies,problem-solving strategies and seekingsupport. Taken together with other researchstudies, this study adds further evidence ofthe high level of worry typically being expe-rienced by pupils in many countries as theyprogress towards the end of secondary





Boekaerts, M. (1995). Affects, emotions andlearning. In L.W. Anderson (Ed.), InternationalEncyclopaedia of Teaching and Teacher Education(2nd ed.) (pp.402–407). Oxford: Pergamon.

Denscombe, M. (2000). Social conditions for stress:young people’s experience of doing GCSEs. BritishEducational Research Journal, 26(3), 359–374.

Frydenberg, E. (1997). Adolescent coping: Theoreticaland research perspectives. London: Routledge.

Frydenberg, E. & Lewis, R. (1999). Things don’t getbetter just because you’re older: A case for facili-tating reflection. British Journal of EducationalPsychology, 69(1), 81–94.

Gallagher, M. & Millar, R. (1996). A survey of adoles-cent worry in Northern Ireland. Pastoral Care inEducation, 14(2), 26–32.

Jiang, C.X. (1991). A study of adolescent life stress, copingbehaviours and psycho-physical health. MA thesis,National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei,Taiwan.

Jiang, K.M. (1993). A study of life stress, coping behav-iours and psycho-physical health of senior high schoolstudents. MA thesis, National Kaohsiung NormalUniversity, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.

Kyriacou, C. (2003). Helping troubled pupils.Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes.

Kyriacou, C. & Kim, J. (2004). Pupil stress in SouthKorean secondary schools. Psychology of EducationReview, 28(1), 27–30. [Note: Owing to a publica-tion error, the name of the second author wasomitted from the title page of this paper.]

Lewis, R. & Frydenberg, E. (2002). Concomitants offailure to cope: What we should teach adoles-cents about coping. British Journal of EducationalPsychology, 72(3), 419–431.

Li, X.Y. (2001). A study of the subjective life stress, socialsupport, coping behaviours and psycho-physical healthof junior high school students in Taoyuan. MA thesis,National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei,Taiwan.

McNamara, S. (2000). Stress in young people: What’s newand what can we do? London: Continuum.

Milgram, N. & Toubiana, Y. (1999). Academicanxiety, academic procrastination, and parentalinvolvement in students and their parents. BritishJournal of Educational Psychology, 69(3), 345–361.

Millar, R., Gallagher, M. & Ellis, R. (1993). Surveyingadolescent worries: Development of the ‘Things Iworry about’ scale. Pastoral Care in Education,11(1), 43–51.

Pomerantz, E. M., Altermatt, E.R. & Saxon, J.L.(2002). Making the grade but feeling distressed:Gender differences in academic performanceand internal distress. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 94(2), 396–404.

Robson, M., Cook, P. & Galliland, J. (1995). Helpingchildren manage stress. British EducationalResearch Journal, 21(2), 165–174.

Su, H.C. (1998). A study of the relationships betweensocial support, self-efficacy, stress, cognitive appraisaland coping strategies for junior high school students inTaiwan. MA thesis, National Taiwan NormalUniversity, Taipei, Taiwan.

Torsheim, T. & Wold, B. (2001). School-related stress,support, and subjective health complaints amongearly adolescents: A multilevel approach. Journalof Adolescence, 24(6), 701–713.

Wu, Y.N. (1996). A study of life stress, social support andcoping strategies in a sample of senior high school andvocational school students. MA thesis, SoochowUniversity, Taipei, Taiwan.

schooling. Schools and governments need toconsider whether this can be tolerated, orwhether action needs to be taken to reducestress and to help pupils cope more effec-tively with the worries they experience.

CorrespondenceDr Chris KyriacouDepartment of Educational Studies,University of York,York YO10 5DD.E-mail: [email protected]

References


A Note to the ReadersPeter D. Pumfrey

Dear Readers,

The Psychology of Education Review(PER) Book Reviews section.Change of EditorshipOn 10th January, 2005, I informed Dr. SueHallam, Chairperson of the EducationSection of the British Psychological Societyand Dr. J. Howard, Editor of The Psychology ofEducation Review (PER) that, owing to unan-ticipated family circumstances, I would haveto tender my resignation as PER BookReviews Editor to the Education SectionCommittee. In order to ease the transfer ofresponsibilities to the new editors, I under-took to resign with effect from the publica-tion of PER, Vol. 29, No. 2.

Subsequently, two colleagues have agreedto take up the work. They are Dr. PeterSutherland, of the University of Stirling, andDr. Colette Gray of Stranmillis UniversityCollege, Belfast. I wish them every successand am confident that they will find theexperience both professionally and person-ally enriching.

The Publications Unit at the Society’sHQ in Leicester provides the PER BookReviews Editors with a service that is secondto none. In particular, I wish to acknowledgeboth the professional expertise and thefriendships of Martin Reeves and Geoff Ellisduring my period as Book Reviews Editor.From them I have learned a great deal. Theadministrative support of Robert Knight inconnection with PER Book Review distribu-tions is also gratefully acknowledged.

PER Book Review papers, Book Reviews and Editorial PolicyIn the previous edition of PER (Vol. 29, No. 1, p.54) ‘A Question for the Readership’was presented. It raised an important issueconcerning the development of editorial

policy of the PER Book Reviews section. It isequally relevant to both Review Papers andBook Reviews. PER allows that ‘Authors maybe invited to respond’. No criteria are givenfor the Book Reviews Editor extending suchan invitation. During my tenure, I did notcome across a situation where I consideredthat such an invitation was merited, until thepublication of PER Vol. 28, No. 2. I receiveda letter from the senior editor/authorconcerning the published review of a bookthat he and his colleagues had edited. Theauthors/editors’ objections to the publishedreview were based on what was perceived as afailure by the reviewer adequately to informthe readers of the eminent contributors andthe nature, quality and significance of theircontributors and their inputs to the partic-ular publication. It was a clearly documentedand argued objection. The letter was accom-panied by a note expanding on the concernsof the correspondent and his colleagues. Itwas requested that I publish these reactionsin the next edition of PER, namely Vol. 29,No.1.

I discussed this request with the leadcorrespondent. My editorial decision wasthat I would consult the PER readership toestablish which of the following two optionsthey would like the Book Reviews Editor ofPER to adopt. I outlined the issue and soughtyour comments concerning which of twoeditorial policy options is likely to be in thebest interests of: (a) readers of PER; (b)reviewers; and (c) authors/editors of books.

Option 1Continue with the existing policy wherebythe authors/editors of reviewed books donot have a ‘right of reply’ (as opposed toreceiving an invitation to reply) to apublished review.

Option 2.Change PER Book Reviews editorial policyand formally invite ALL bookauthors/editors to send in their reactions tothe review of their book published in PER.

(Option 2 would require a limitation tothe length of such a response and a deadlineby when it must reach the PER Book ReviewsEditors.).

Your views were requested.

Results and Policy RecommendationThe number of responses was small (N=9).All were in favour of Option 2.

The following edited views summarisekey concerns expressed by the respondents.

‘I come down on the side of your Option2 – whilst imposing a strict limitation andimposing a “deadline”, as you indicate.’

Having suffered once or twice at the handsof reviewers, I think that a right of reply isindicated in terms of ‘natural justice’. Onecompromise but tenable position, I suppose,would be to make it clear that the right ofreply would be limited to matters of scientificor substantive fact – and the assessment as towhether the response from the author/editor was confined to that would be at theabsolute discretion of the Book ReviewEditors.

The contrary view might be that, if theauthor/editor is offered ‘natural justice’,why should the reviewer not also have theright of reply? A way to meet that potentialproblem – of never-ending dispute – mightbe to say that normally no further corre-spondence would be entertained after theoriginal response but that in very excep-tional circumstances, and at the Book ReviewEditors’ sole discretion, a final responsefrom the book reviewer could be allowed.

The simple solution would, of course, beto stick with the status quo and a quiet life!However, as I have indicated above, I havenever felt the present situation – notconfined to the BPS, of course – was satisfac-tory or fair.’

Editorial decisionIn future, all requests for review book copiesmade to publishers will state explicitly thatauthors/editors would have a ‘right of reply’to a review, BUT that this would be of nomore than a specified number of words andmust be submitted to the PER Book ReviewEditors by a given deadline. Operational-ising both of these criteria would be at thePER Book Review Editors’ discretion.

Subsequent to this consultation, both thelead editor of the publication reviewed andthe author of the PER book review werecontacted and informed of the editorialdecision.

The following response was submittedprior to that decision but not used until theconsultation with the readership wascompleted.

Peter D. Pumfrey, CPsychol., FBPsS.PER Book Reviews Editor.


Peter D. Pumfrey


Dear Peter (Pumfrey),Thanks for sending me a copy of AlanMcLean’s review of our book for thePsychology of Education Review (2004). I havethree reactions.

His expectations are seriouslymismatched with the actual questions thatwe set for this volume, as set out in our Intro-duction:‘The papers were intended to address suchquestions as:! perspectives on human development

applied to motivation;! perspectives on motivation applied to

human development;! perspectives on both human

development and motivation;! perspectives on human development and

motivation applied to education.’

My second reaction is to note that the namesof our contributors are conspicuously absentfrom the review. This is an astonishing over-sight. I request that you publish the Contentspage as a supplement to the review, whetherin the 2004 issue, or the next one.

My third reaction is to note that McLeanoffers no clue as to his own answers to ourquestions.Yours sincerelyEmeritus Professor Leslie SmithFormerly of the Department of EducationalResearch, Lancaster University,Lancaster LA1 4YL.

A response to a Book ReviewLeslie Smith

Contents

IntroductionLeslie Smith & Colin RogersAbility conceptions, motivation, anddevelopmentCarol DwekMorals, motives, and actionElliot Turiel An integration of motivation and cognition Mark H. BickhardInterest and human development:An educational-psychological perspectiveAndreas Krapp Developmental regulation across the lifespan: A control-theory approach andimplications for secondary educationJutta Heckhausen & Susan P. Farruggia

Two motivational systems that shapedevelopment: Epistemic and self-organisingKurt W. Fischer & Michael ConnellTaking agency seriously in the theories-of-mind enterprise: Exploring children’sunderstanding of interpretation andintentionBryan W. Sokol & Michael ChandlerMultiple goals and multiple pathways in thedevelopment of motivation and learningPaul R. PintrichAchieving motivation in real contextsJulian Elliott & Neil HuftonTowards a model that integrates motivation,affect and learningMonique BoekaertsConclusionColin Rogers & Leslie Smith

Development and Motivation: Joint PerspectivesLeslie Smith, Colin Rogers & Peter Tomlinson (Eds.)

REVIEW PAPER

Theoretical Models and Processes ofReading (TMPR5) (5th ed.)Robert B. Ruddell & Norman J. Unrau (Eds.)Newark, Delaware: International ReadingAssociation, 2004. ISBN: 0-87207-502-8 (Paperback).Pp. xxiv + 1728. £91.50.

!"Reviewed by Peter D. Pumfrey

In the UK one central component of theNational Curriculum, the National LiteracyStrategy, was launched in 1998. It is deemednot to have been the success in raising attain-ments that had been anticipated by govern-ment. Government is reconsideringguidance formerly (and formally) given toteachers on the teaching of reading in partic-ular, and of literacy in general, to youngchildren. Under the Chairmanship of BarrySheerman, MP, The House of CommonsSelect Committee on Education has beenconsidering selected evidence addressingthis political/educational challenge. In theSummer of 2005, the Secretary of State forEducation, Ruth Kelly, announced thesetting up of an independent review ofevidence concerning ‘the role of phonics’ in

teaching reading (Clare, 2005). CouldTMPR5 be of value in this task?

To do as Ruth Kelly requires, oneassumes that there is a generally acceptedunderstanding concerning what we mean bythe concept ‘Reading’ and the skillsinvolved. Excluding individuals with variousforms of sensory impairment, for the vastmajority of the population the ability to readwill include both decoding graphic repre-sentations of language into sounds and thecomprehension of what has been decoded.The limitations of this description becomeclear when it is accepted that reading is butone facet of literacy and that literacy itself isbut one of a number of symbolic systems thatpermeate everyday life. Additionally,languages and orthographies differmarkedly in: the transparency of the linksbetween written symbols; the soundsemployed; the difficulties in decodingsymbols to sounds; comprehension of theinformation that has been processed; thepedagogies that have evolved; and theresources deployed to facilitate the acquisi-tion by children of literacy skills. The Inter-national Reading Association might, toadvantage, consider following the exampleof the former United Kingdom Reading


A Review Paper represents a somewhat more extensive considera-tion of a given publication than is possible in the space normallyavailable to contributors to the Book Reviews section of The Psychology of Education Review.

Members of The Psychology of Education Section who haveread a recent professional publication that they consider merits anextended treatment as a Review Paper are asked to contact the Book Reviews Editor in the firstinstance. The Book Reviews Editor may also invite colleagues to write an extended review of abook for The Psychology of Education Review.

The first review in this edition, written by myself, is an example of a Review Paper.

Book ReviewsEdited by Peter D. Pumfrey

Association and rename itself the Interna-tional Literacy Association.

Q.1. Does TMPR5 offer the UK Secretary ofState for Education’s research team evidencethat can assist them in their task?Q.2. Might TMPR5 serve more far reachingand important ends? andQ.3. Should there be further printededitions of TMPR5?

I will return to these three questions at theend of the review.

The demise of the printed book has beenpredicted. Currently the technology of bookproduction enables an ever increasingvolume of written materials to be producedand disseminated in any field. Publishershave to sell their wares. Authors aspire tohave their writings read by whichever audi-ence they are addressing, and to receivecritical comments. Irrespective of the mode,conventional or electronic, wherebymessages are disseminated, the time avail-able to professionals to read, reflect anddiscuss theory, research and practice withtheir colleagues has not increased. The challenges of coping with information over-load have to be faced. So too has theincreasing cost/benefits ratio of purchasingbooks such as TMPR5, whether by librariesor individuals.

TMPR5 is weighty in all senses of theword. It is also expensive. Is it worth reading?Important pointers to the last question canbe found in its six ambitious purposes. Theseare to provide:! an in-depth knowledge and under-

standing of the most current reading andliteracy research;

! an understanding of a wide range ofresearch designs and their application toexpanding the literacy knowledge base;

! a precise understanding of a wide rangeof theoretical models and cognitiveprocesses;

! the ability to critically evaluate andcritique a wide range of reading andliteracy research;

! the ability to assess a wide range ofliteracy theories reflected in varioustheoretical models; and

! an understanding of reading and literacyresearch and the ability to use and applythis knowledge base in generating newresearch and informing instructionaldecision-making.’ (pp.x+xi).

What is the provenance of the book? Howadequately does its structure and contentsfacilitate the professional reader’s achieve-ment of these six laudable purposes?

The International Reading Association wasestablished in 1956. Since its formation, it hasbeen, and continues to be, a dominant forcein the development of theory, research, prac-tice and policy in relation to literacy. The firstedition of Theoretical Models and Processes ofReading (TMPR1) was published in 1970 (348pp.). Subsequent editions appeared in 1976(second edition: 768 pp.), 1985 (third edition976 pp.), 1994 (fourth edition 1296 pp.) and2004 (fifth edition: xxiv+1728 pp.). Seventyper cent of the contents of TMPR5 have notappeared in earlier volumes. A CD has beendeveloped for use with TMPR5. It providessupporting articles focussed on each of thefour sections of the book. (The reviewer hasnot seen the contents of this CD.)

Paralleling the pattern of earlier editions,TMPR is divided into four major Sections.The 60 contributions (four Introductionsplus 56 Chapters) are drawn mainly, but notexclusively, from the US and Anglophonecountries. Seventy-eight contributors arelisted: 72 are from institutions in the US;three from the UK, and one each fromAustralia, Canada and China.

Rigorous quality control procedures havebeen applied in selecting the contents of thebook. All contributions are deemed to repre-sent the highest level of scholarship in agiven field. Section One, ‘Perspectives onLiteracy Research and its Applications:Viewing the Past, Envisioning the Future’,sets the scene by exploring the past, presentand future of literacy research and practice.It identifies crucial changes that have takenplace, are taking place now and are likely to


Book Reviews

occur in the future in the field. New andpotentially promising lines for both researchand its applications are presented. SectionTwo, ‘Processes of Reading and Literacy’,comprises a judicious balance betweentheoretical and applied research across avariety of methodologies. Section Three isentitled ‘Models of Reading and WritingProcesses’. The models presented are seen asevolving phases in theory development.Some models well-known to professionalshave been updated. Newer models havebeen included. The final Section Four looksto the future. It includes five new contribu-tions, each concerned with a different partof what each author sees as the important inthe expanding literacy spectrum before us.Each looks to a particular aspect of thefuture. The promise and the problems ofICT , of assessment and of children fromlow-income backgrounds are challenginglyaddressed.

Each Section begins with an Introduc-tion. Section One includes three chapters.Each of Sections Two and Three is sub-divided into six Parts. Each Part includes adifferent number of chapters. The followingsummary is intended to indicate to readersthe concerns and scope of the book’scontents.

Section One.Perspectives on Literacy Research and itsApplication: Viewing the Past and Envisioning the Future.Introduction plus: (three chapters).

Section Two.Processes of Reading and Literacy.Introduction plus:Part 1. Language and Cognition in Sociocultual Contexts. (Eight chapters)Part 2. Foundations for Literacy Development. (Seven chapters)Part 3. Comprehension Development fromWords to World. (Nine chapters)Part 4. Extending Comprehension ThroughMetacognition. (Three chapters).Part 5. Reader Response, Motivation and

Engagement. (Five chapters).Part 6. Instructional Effects on LiteracyDevelopment. (Four chapters).

Section Three.Models of Reading and Writing Processes.Introduction plus :Part 1. Cognitive-Processing Models.(Seven chapters).Part 2. A Dual Coding Model.(One chapter)Part 3. A Transactional Model.(One chapter).Part 4. An Individual-Environmental Modelof Writing. (One chapter).Part 5. An Attitude-Influence Model. (One chapter).Part 6. A Sociocognitive Model of Reading.(One chapter).

Section Four.Literacy’s New Horizons:An Emerging Agenda for Tomorrow’sResearch and Practice.Introduction plus: (Five chapters).

The systematic inclusion of sets of six care-fully formulated ‘Questions for Reflection’for each of the four Sections providesreaders with useful ‘advance organisers’ inrelation to the content that follows. Each setof questions is designed around five explicitexpectations of the reader (p.xvi). The fifthof these is ‘require summaries and applica-tions of key ideas to classroom readinginstruction’.

In all countries in which textual informa-tion is a valued resource, theory, practiceand research are mutually interdependent.All are essential if advances in our ability tounderstand, and optimise children’s acquisi-tion of literacy are to be made. Conceptual-ising the nature of receptive and expressiveprocesses involved in children’s acquisitionof literacy and optimising the efficacy of theteaching and learning involved are contin-uing challenges. The contents of TMPR5summarised above underline a commend-able breadth of coverage. Reading and


Book Reviews

reflecting on the contributions indicatestheir depth of scholarship – even where thereader questions what is being assumed byan author and the theoretical and peda-gogical applications deemed to flow fromtheir findings. Many disciplines are legiti-mately involved in attempting these complexand challenging tasks. Section Three makesit clear that constructing theories, makingpredictions and testing them are central tothe advancement of knowledge in this field.The desire for simple answers to complexquestions concerning the nature, identifica-tion, incidence, prognoses and facilitation ofliteracy development in a wide range ofcontexts, is understandable. TMPR5confirms the limitations of what profes-sionals know and can do on the basis ofcurrent research evidence. Its authors alsoidentify promising avenues for futureresearch and the development of practice.

International comparative studies ofreading attainments have demonstratedstatistically significant mean differences in,for example, reading attainments betweenchildren in different countries. Even for themost successful country, the national targetof a literate population remains an ongoingchallenge. The nature and limitations of theassessment techniques used to assess attain-ments in, and attitudes towards, reading andother aspects of literacy are not well under-stood by members of the teaching professionin many countries.

Values and priorities matter. Believingthat the educational system aspires toproviding ‘The greatest good for the greatestnumber’ encourages the search forapproaches, or a combination of approaches,that demonstrate on average a superiority toother approaches in facilitating youngchildren’s acquisition of literacy in generaland reading in particular. In contrast, placingthe individual child at the centre of profes-sional concern is expressed as ‘I swearnothing is good to me that ignores individ-uals’ (Whitman). A knowledge of the natureof both inter and intra-individual differencesin children’s information processing abilities

and attainments as they develop and change overtime and in a variety of pedagogic contexts, isessential. If this is neglected, it can lead to anunhelpful polarisations and conflictsbetween the expectations of society and ofthe individual.

ConclusionReturning to the three questions posedearlier:

Q.1. Does TMPR5 offer the UK Secretary ofState for Education’s research team evidencethat can assist them in their task?Answer: Yes.There are also many other helpful recentsources including two by McGuinness,published in 2004 and 2005. Her analysis ofthe efficacy of a number of phonics teachingapproaches is thought provoking (McGuin-ness, 2004). Reservations concerning herconclusions have been expressed (Pumfrey,2005).

Q.2. Might TMPR5 serve more far reachingand important ends? Answer: Yes.The tensions between advocates of therespective influences of ‘nature’, ‘nurture’and their interactions can lead to unneces-sary and counterproductive polarised posi-tions. TMPR5 is a resource that can open uppromising lines of development. These maylead to the resolution of existing controver-sies involved in the advancement of know-ledge and its application. Hypothesis andantithesis can lead to synthesis.

The aspiration of improving our effec-tiveness in helping children to acquire theskills of literacy is laudable. It would be diffi-cult to find any politician, professional,parent or carer who would disagree on thisobjective. Current research evidence on howthe objective can best be approached issomewhat sparse.

Physicists are involved a search for TOE(Theory of Everything’) and GUT (GrandUnifying Theory), TMPR5 vividly illustratesthat in relation to the nature and modifiability


Book Reviews

of inter and intra-individual differences inchildren’s cognitive, conative and affectiveattributes, professionals in many disciplineshave much to do. In our present state ofknowledge, suspicion of any panaceasclaiming to eliminate illiteracy is essential.

Q.3. Should there be further printededitions of TMPR5? Answer: Yes.I have been a member of the UnitedKingdom Reading Association, now theUnited Kingdom Literacy Association, andof the International Reading Association, formany years. TMPR2, 3 and 4 have beenresources that have helped me as a student,researcher and tutor. In reality it will be forcurrent and future students, researchers andtutors to determine whether or not Informa-tion Communication Technologies will makesuch books redundant.

Peter D. Pumfrey, Emeritus Professor,University of Manchester and Visiting Professor,University College Worcester.

ReferencesClare, J. (2005). Teaching reading will return to

the sound method. Daily Telegraph, No. 46,650, 3 June.

McGuinness, D. (2004). Early reading instruction. Whatscience really tells us about how to teach reading.Cambridge, Massachusets: The MIT Press.

McGuinness, D. (2005). Language development andlearning to read. Cambridge, Massachusets: TheMIT Press.

Pumfrey, P.D. (2005). Review Paper. ‘Early readinginstruction. What science really tells us abouthow to teach reading’. The Psychology of EducationReview, 29(1), 69–74.


Book Reviews

REVIEW PAPER

Handbook of Early Childhood LiteracyNigel Hall, Joanne Larson & Jackie March(Eds.)London: Sage, 2004. ISBN: 0-7619-7437-7 (Hardback).Pp. 437. £85.00.

!"Reviewed by Margaret M. Clark

Outline of the handbookThe editors state that: ‘This handbookprovides an overview of up-to-date researchinto early childhood literacy’ and ‘deals withsubjects relating to the nature, function anduse of literacy and the development,learning and teaching of literacy in earlychildhood’. It emphasises ‘literacy as asocially situated and global experience, onethat is evolving in relation to changes incontemporary culture and technologicalinnovation’. (p.437)

The handbook has 33 chapters by 45authors from seven countries and four conti-

nents, and from a range of disciplines. AnAdvisory Board of 19 international scholarsreviewed the chapters. The handbook is infive sections as follows: ! Perspectives on Early Childhood

Literacy;! Early Childhood Literacy in Families,

Communities and Cultures;! Early Moves in Literacy;! Literacy in Preschool Settings and

Schools;! Researching Early Childhood Literacy.

In the preface the editors state that onthe whole the chapters reflect ‘a particularand distinctive view of early childhoodliteracy’. In many of the chapters literacy isconsidered ‘a social practice, linked tocultural and linguistic practices and powerrelationships in specific contexts’ (p.xix).The reasons given for selecting this emphasisare that the editors see this as a relativelyrecent development; it provides a broadinterpretation of childhood literacy; and itrecognises that literacy is changing incontemporary society. It covers the period

from pre-school to eight years of age, thoughthe major focus is on pre-school in a numberof the chapters.

The editors do not claim that the hand-book is comprehensive in its coverage ofresearch into childhood literacy. Within themajor themes, they state that leading author-ities provide social, cultural and historicalanalyses of aspects of early childhoodliteracy. It appears that a similar frameworkwas provided for authors, including a histor-ical review of their field, thoughts aboutfuture research, and an extensive referencelist. The readership for which it is intendedis said to be researchers, academics, studentsand policy makers. The editors note thatsome readers may consider they pay too littleattention to school literacy; however, theyclaim that until recently it would be difficultto find other research. They consider thattoo much research into literacy is driven bythe agendas of schooling, obscuring all else,particularly realities outside and beyondschooling; this dominance should not, it isargued, be unreflectively accepted. There isa focus in the handbook on what childrencan do; little attention is given to childrenwho find acquisition of literacy difficult.

General impressionsAs a conscientious reviewer I probably had toapproach the handbook in a rather differentway from many readers, as I studied it in amore concentrated form, and from cover tocover! Readers are more likely to selectsections and chapters within their sphere ofresearch interest. As a researcher who hasdevoted many years to literacy research I stillfound new insights and a number of usefulreferences. However, some chapters I foundheavy-going and loaded with technicalterms. To be fair, in some instances thiscould have been because they were furtherfrom my field of expertise; nonetheless,some chapters thanks to their terminologyand style would have been less accessible to awide readership. I do not think the hand-book would sustain the interest for example,of undergraduate early childhood literacy

students, or provide readily accessibleconclusions of a kind to appeal to policy-makers or practitioners. In many chaptersthere is little attempt to relate the findings topreschool and primary settings although thehandbook is said to cover the years to eight.

Although I assume the authors weregiven guidelines, not all seem to haveadhered to these, some using less familiarterminology with little preparatory scenesetting. Clearer abstracts in some chapters,or a longer overview of the field, for exampleat the start of each section, might havehelped; alternatively a final chaptersurveying the field covered, and indicatingthe areas omitted. Only a few authors relatetheir chapter to others, possibly I suspect,when they were already familiar with, and insympathy with the work of these researchers.To a great extent readers are left to maketheir own links. Inevitably my areas ofexpertise meant that some chapters wereeasier for me to process and appealed to memore. However, my comments reflect myattempts to assess the handbook`s relevanceto a wide readership.

Awakening to literacyIt is stressed in the first chapter, and inothers, that the type of research reported inthe handbook is of relatively recent origin. Iwould take issue with that view. I wassurprised that Awakening to Literacy (1984)edited by Goelman, Oberg and Smith, wasreferred to by only one author, particularlysince the work of many of the contributors tothat book are cited in a number of chapters.It could have provided readers with a valu-able historical overview of research acrossdisciplines already available by 1984. Itcontains papers from an internationalseminar convened by Frank Smith. Theparticipants included educationists, psychol-ogists and anthropologists, and in additionto Frank Smith and myself, Bruner, Olsen,Bissex, Ferreiro, Yetta Goodman and theScollons. The papers were circulated inadvance, and we devoted several days tolearning from the perspectives of the other


Book Reviews

participants. The book also has chapters byHeath and Donaldson (though neither wasable to attend the seminar). Already by 1984the Scollons were considering the negativeimplications of introducing literacy to aculture with an advanced oral language, andin particular the effect of the type of Amer-ican textbooks which were being used, whichthey felt would devalue the existing culture,also the impact of computers in communi-ties which were not book literate (Scollon &Scollon, 1984). My contribution was basedon a further analysis of my study of YoungFluent Readers, which was completed by 1970,and published in 1976, particularly withreference to the young children’s earliestattempts at spelling (Clark 1976, 1984). Thepapers from this symposium formed a valu-able focus for my lectures on early literacy in1980s. One of these students was ShirleyPayton, whose dissertation Developing Aware-ness of Print is referred to in Chapter 1 of thishandbook. Her study was of her own youngdaughter’s very early interactions withliteracy in all its forms, in the home. I wouldagree that recently more attention is beingdevoted to children’s earliest interactionswith print, however, I would not accept thatinterdisciplinary research of these areas isonly a recent development. My study ofyoung children who entered school alreadyreading with fluency and understanding,conducted in 1970 is referred to in five chap-ters. In one of these my name is spelt incor-rectly. In another the date of publication isgiven as 1999, not 1976, and the index givesonly one of the page references.

Selected pointsWhile most of the research reported is fromEnglish-speaking countries, there are someinteresting points made on literacy wherechildren are simultaneously learning to readand write in two different languages. I haveprovided tasters from a selection of chapters.

In Chapter 2 Viruru considers the influ-ence of global capitalism on pre-literatecommunities, and points out that these soci-eties which use written language are consid-

ered superior to those which do not, and hesuggests that literacy is often defined by ‘itsother’, the illiterate.

In Chapter 4 Razfar and Gutierrezconsider the social cultural aspects aboutliteracy practices of linguistic and racialminority homes; this they argue can promotenarrow conceptions of literacy.

In Chapter 5 Knobel and Lankshearconsider out-of-school literacies, challengingcommonly held but detrimental assumptionsand stereotypes regarding traditionallymarginalised students and their out-of-school lives. They argue that study of youngchildren under eight is under-researched, ornot researched in sufficient breadth.

In Chapter 7 Gregory and Kenner stressthe growing appreciation ‘that people withaccess to different languages, cultural andreligious practices have not just funds ofknowledge but a range of choices that areinaccessible to monolinguals’ (p. 82). InChapter 15, the same authors remind us thatmore children in the world are now bilingualthan monolingual, and are being educatedbilingually or in a second language otherthan their mother tongue.

Cairney (Chapter 8) claims that we stillknow little about the way that the multilit-eracies of life interact and shape each otherand those who use them. He cites researchclaiming that school acts as ‘a linguisticleveller’ and fails to acknowledge and buildupon the linguistic diversity of families. Hestresses that literacy is not culturally neutral.

Hannon (Chapter 9) claims that earlychildhood educators tend to see familyliteracy programmes as the latest form ofparental involvement in early literacy, whilehe considers the families’ own literacy valuesand practices. He singles out certain aspectsof these programmes he feels have hightheoretical or practical interest.

Marsh (Chapter 10) has a focus on agrowing area of interest, literacy and popularculture, an area within which she indicatesthere is as yet limited research as far as earlychildhood is concerned. She gives a helpfuloutline of existing research, arguing that we


Book Reviews

should become aware of the role of popularculture for young children and appreciateways in which this can inform the early yearscurriculum.

Robinson and Mackey (Chapter 11)consider the complexities of the relationshipbetween televisual texts. They claim thatmuch existing research sets up a simpleopposition between print and television,where the latter is viewed as a deficit to beconfronted.

Stainthorp (Chapter 18) considers theimportant topic of phonology and learningto read, beginning with a clear introductionon the meaning of the various terms.However, she states that: ‘The number ofsyllables in a word is synonymous with thenumber of vowels’ (p.210). Surely not –vowel sounds, possibly?

Nikolajeva from Sweden gives an inter-esting overview of research into picturebooks and illustrated books in Chapter 20.She stresses the importance of visual literacy,a relatively new area of research. The authorchooses to use picture books as her term;this I found rather confusing as I would usethe words ‘illustrated’ and ‘picture books’with rather different meanings.

Scharer and Zutell (Chapter 23), discussthe development of spelling. I was interestedin their comment that while English-speaking children’s earliest spellings repre-sent consonants (as I found in my YoungFluent Readers, and other case histories ofvery young children), Spanish-speakingchildren represent vowel elements,according to Ferrerio and Teberosky(p.279). They note that there is relativelylittle research on similarities within andacross language systems. They regard it asimportant that research encourages teachersto find out what children are ‘using butconfusing’ as a basis for their instruction.

In Chapter 25, Larson and Petersonmake a point which surprised me. Appar-ently in the US ‘a federally sanctioned defi-nition of research effectively eliminates allforms of qualitative research from recogni-tion as valid science’. They argue that to

eliminate whole fields of literacy researchseems short-sighted and damaging (p.302).They also claim that competing ideologieshave made it difficult for readers of researchto understand how to interpret the findings.

Labbo and Reinking (Chapter 28)discuss the fact that for many youngstersliteracy activities involve computers prior toand outside school and that their experi-ences with these may be more frequent,richer and more meaningful than those theyexperience on entry to school.

Comber (Chapter 29) claims thatresearch into critical literacy is still in itsinfancy.

I found the final section entitled‘Researching Early Childhood Literacy’disappointing. Its three chapters seemed verylimited in scope, and are presented in such away that they would not tempt the generalreader to read on. The first is introducedwith the following, ‘We are interested in theunderlying chronotopes of research studiesof young children and literacy … an impliedideology about how people move throughtime and space’ (p.381). The second chapterdeals with ‘feminist methodologies’, makingsome interesting points, particularly as theauthor is an Australian living in Norway,which she claims to my surprise to be quite anoral culture. The final chapter adopts a natu-ralistic viewpoint. While views expressed inthis section would be of interest to somereaders, I anticipated a more wide-rangingand balanced discussion of research intochildhood literacy for this final section. I wasalso surprised that there was not a detaileddiscussion of ethics in naturalistic research inany of these chapters.

Final commentsThere are inevitable gaps in an edited volumenot found in a textbook by a single author;though naturally there are strengths inbreadth in an edited book with many authors.Some gaps could have been compensated forby authors linking chapters within eachsection, by a more extensive overview, or aconcluding chapter drawing points together.


Book Reviews

I would have liked to see more referenceto ICT in pre-school, for example. Twouseful references to this are Stephen andPlowman (2002 a and b). The first is a reviewof the literature on ICT in preschoolsettings, the second reports the findings ofobservational study in Scotland. I would alsolike to have seen a more detailed review ofyoung children’s television, video and DVDuse, and their interactive use of computers.There are recent surveys of these, whichform an important aspect of the lives ofmany young children, with differential useby children in different social classes. TheNational Literacy Trust has recently under-taken such a literature review.

Finally, I felt sorry that there was notmore attention to differences betweenspoken and written language and to thedevelopment of grammar which takes placeeven in very young children; issues aboutdistinctions between lower case and capitalletters; more consideration of youngchildren’s growing appreciation of thedifference between drawing and writing andbetween the sounds and names of letters. Ina publication with contributions fromauthors from so many countries I would alsohave liked to see some consideration of theimplications for literacy development of thevery different ages at which childrencommence formal instruction in literacy,and the approaches adopted. Since so manychildren before the age of five are now inpreschool settings, and before eight years ofage, in some countries, would have had theirbasic instruction in literacy, I think readerswould have found it helpful to have hadmore attention to the implications of suchdifferences for literacy development.

Margaret M. Clark,Visiting Professor, Newman College of HigherEducation,Birmingham.

ReferencesClark, M.M. (1976). Young fluent readers. London:

Heinemann.Clark, M.M. (1984) Literacy at home and at school:

Insights from a study of young fluent readers. In H. Goelman, A. Oberg & F. Smith (Eds.),Awakening to literacy. Exeter, New Hampshire:Heinemann.

Goelman, H., Oberg, A. & Smith, F. (Eds.) (1984).Awakening to literacy. Exeter, New Hampshire:Heinemann.

Payton, S. (1984). Developing awareness of print: A young child’s first steps towards literacy. Educa-tional Review Off-set publication No. 2. Birm-ingham: University of Birmingham.

Scollon, S.B.K. & Scollon, R. (1984). Can Tommyread? In H. Goelman, A. Oberg & F. Smith(Eds.), Awakening to literacy. Exeter, New Hamp-shire: Heinemann.

Stephen, C. & Plowman, L. (2002a). ICT in pre-school:A benign addition? A review of the literature on ICT inpre-school settings. Dundee: Learning andTeaching Scotland.

Stephen, C. & Plowman, L. (2002b). Come back in twoyears! A study of the use of ICT in pre-school settingsduring spring and summer 2002. Dundee: Learningand Teaching Scotland.


Book Reviews

Reading and Reader Development:The Pleasure of ReadingJudith Elkin, Briony Train & Debbie DenhamLondon: Facet Publishing, 2003. ISBN: 1-85604-467-X (Hardback).Pp. 256. £44.95.

!"Reviewed by Rea Reason

The three authors of this book describe andevaluate, from different angles, how librariescan enhance individual joy, satisfaction andpleasure in reading throughout life. Thebook is organised into nine chapters. Thefirst provides an overview of the factors thatcontribute to reader development. Thetheoretical basis is not in psychologicalresearch as such but in eloquent quotes fromliterary authors that illustrate the individualand social benefits of reading.

In recent years public libraries within theUK have introduced project based promo-tional events and programmes ranging fromreading groups to national readingcampaigns. These are described in thesecond and third chapters. For example, thePublic Libraries Challenge Fund invested £4million in a range of projects for both adultsand children that also involved the creationof partnerships with other sectors. Evalua-tions of these projects showed that they stim-ulated innovation and short-term readerdevelopment. However, the authors acknow-ledge the dangers of operating within aproject culture where change only happensas a result of time-limited project budgets.These comments certainly resonate withthose of us who have tendered for projectfunding and then found that projects havepetered out as funding has ceased. It is as ifthe projects have been regarded as fringeactivities, not central enough for sustainedpublic funding.

The fourth chapter focuses on a survey in2002 by the International Federation ofLibrary Services. Librarians from some 18countries were involved in considering theimpact of reader-centred work on theirservices and to share examples of good prac-tice. The survey provides data about reading

policies, partnerships, promotional activitiesand staff skills and training. At the end of thechapter, the experiential accounts fromlibrarians in four countries – Australia,Canada, the Netherlands and Norway – illus-trate how reading for pleasure is promotedby their public library services.

The following two chapters become morerelevant for me. Chapter 5 considers multi-cultural literature and includes lengthyquotes from the writings of a range ofauthors. Not surprisingly, it is argued thatracial tension and institutional racism in theUK have many underlying causes. Chapter 6is entitled ‘special needs/special places’. I expected to read about library access forthose with literacy learning difficulties butthis aspect is covered rather cursorily.Instead, the emphasis is on social inclusionand particular client groups such as looked-after children, victims of abuse, the elderly,the visually impaired and reading in hospi-tals and prisons. The chapter leaves mewishing for much more information as it isnot possible to do justice to such a widerange of topics within its limits.

The seventh chapter – ICT and readerdevelopment – starts with a consideration ofthe tensions between book reading and tech-nology. It moves quickly, however, todescribe the many positive developmentssuch as interactive fiction, internet readingcommunities and e-books. The libraryservices have themselves, of course, becometransformed through the use of ICT,

Chapter 8 focuses on research and evalu-ation in the field of reader development andthe final ninth chapter provides an overviewof the major issues presented in the book.Many of the dilemmas encountered inapplied psychological research areaddressed here too. For example, theResearch Assessment Exercise undertakenby university departments can result in‘research for research’s sake’ that lacks rele-vance for practitioners in libraries and addsto their scepticism about the value or impactof evaluations. A substantial section inchapter eight considers the merits and


Book Reviews

pitfalls of quantitative and qualitativeresearch. Illustrations demonstrate how bothcan be misinterpreted leading to inaccurateand wrongly used findings. The last part ofthe chapter is perhaps most interesting as itprovides case examples of evaluations ofprojects such as the National Year of Readingin 1998–1999, the DCMS/Wolfson reader-development funded initiatives in2000–2002 and the Branching Outprogramme in 1998–2001.

According to the US National ReadingPanel, there were some 100,000 studiespublished in the English language onreading during the period 1996–1999. The

majority were concerned with the acquisi-tion of reading skills and the cognitiveprocesses underpinning these skills. Fewwere on reading as a leisure activity. For thisreason alone, I have welcomed the opportu-nity to review a book that has as its focus theimportance of reading for pleasure. Theauthors have certainly convinced me of theinstrumental role of public library services indeveloping enthusiasm for reading andallowing free access to books, ICT and otherreading materials.

Dr. Rea Reason,The University of Manchester.


Book Reviews

The Moral Foundations of EducationalResearch: Knowledge, Inquiry andValuesPat Sikes, Jon Wilson & Wilfred Carr (Eds.)Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2003. ISBN: 0-335-21-46-5 (Paperback).Pp. 141. £16.99.

!"Reviewed by Hazel Francis

This edited collection of papers stems from aprotest by staff at the Department of Educa-tion at Sheffield University against criticismfrom government and others that educa-tional research does not provide value formoney and against the government-backedrequirement of a range of research tech-niques, particularly relating to the construc-tion and treatment of numerical data, as partof doctoral research programmes. Theprotest takes the form of adopting a moralhigh ground to contrast with the morallyimpoverished positions of those they oppose– hence the title and theme that educationalresearch should rest on educational values.

In the first paper Carr suggests thateducational research might be more inter-nally coherent and more highly valued byexternal critics if lessons could be learnedfrom examination of how education fared inthe past. He argues that the 19th centuryintroduction of a state system of compulsoryeducation saw the growth of a managerially

driven type of research that supplanted prac-tical philosophy to the detriment of breadth,coherence and value in educationalresearch. McCulloch follows with a sketch ofa ‘social history’ of educational research thattraces additional problems of lack of coher-ence and arguments about value to thetensions in the latter half of the 20th centurybetween educational research based on themethods valued in the various parent disci-plines and between such ‘disciplined’research and inquiry devoted to illustratinghow things are and ought to be in schools inrelation to issues of teacher education.

The other papers from Sheffield take posi-tions with respect to value as they addressparticular questions of educational research,though a paper from outside on similar linesby Nixon, Walker and Clough is moreneutrally presented. Unfortunately theirrange is very limited. The authors’ researchhas mainly been directed towards helpingteachers to understand aspects of their prac-tice and professional lives and to bringingreports together to inform the practice ofteacher educators. The work has been charac-terised by the adoption of qualitative researchmethods. Their main claim to value inresearch is the aim of promoting educationthat is good for the individual and for society.Thus research aims and values sit squarelywith educational. This is what it means to hold

the high moral ground. It would have beenhelpful to the reader if this theme had beendeveloped, illustrated, and analysed further toexamine the values behind the research andthe value of the research to others. Insteadrecourse is made to extracts from the work ofBourdieu and Inglis to claim moral value forlanguage-based research in the social andhuman sciences generally.

The implication of claiming the moralhigh ground is that other research (in Carr’sand McCulloch’s terms both government‘managerial’ and university discipline-based)does not allegedly share these aims.Arguably, it seems to me that this cannot beshown by simply identifying or attributingdifferent or ‘lesser’ values to other kinds ofresearch or to other aims, particularly aimsconcerned with learners’ experiences andachievements. Nor can methods bedisdained because numerical modelling isadopted. The raw data of inquiry may bewords, pictures or measurements butwhether they are linguistically, numericallyor otherwise modelled will depend on theappropriate relation with the aims of thework. The qualitative/quantitative distinc-tion is no basis for any differential attribu-tion of value, and the pejorative use of theterm ‘positivism’ is wilfully misleading. Theway in which different ways of carrying outresearch are denigrated reminds me of theinfant throwing its toys out of the cot. But, unlike the infant, the researcher cannotdepend on the continued existence of abeneficent provider of cots. Funding forresearch for education departments is notguaranteed and there must always be thefear of withdrawal. Caution is indicated inclaiming the moral high ground withoutconvincing funding bodies that the workdone actually does achieve its aims andshould have a high priority. We are all in thesame position of having to justify our work interms of values relating to its usefulness andquality as well as its aims and methods.Temper tantrums are no substitute for well-founded persuasion. But I do agree with theauthors when they question the morality of

seeking funding for research to improveeducation when the work, albeit in educa-tional contexts, is primarily directed towardsextending knowledge in another field.

Different kinds of educational researchpromoted within university departments arenot the only targets for attack. Researchwanted by government, wherever carried out,is criticised on the grounds that a highpremium is put on numerical data and valuefor money. Carr’s paper should havereminded us that ‘managerial research’ is nogovernment whim but is a necessity for theprovision of a publicly funded service whereresources are not limitless and must be usedwisely. I think anyone who studies the variousworking party reports to the then Ministry ofEducation, together with the annual reportsby Her Majesty’s Inspectors of Schools, mustacknowledge that they were underpinned bythe disposition to spend resources wisely forthe good of individuals and society. Theremay be argument over what is judged to begood, but not over the existence of the verysame value of promoting good education thatis claimed by the Sheffield group to underpinits own work. And, although the commis-sioning of research is differently organised,the same is true today. Who can quarrel withsuch a worthy over-riding value? But educa-tional research cannot avoid the conflicts ofvalues contained within this and which ariselargely from politically motivated aims.

Included amongst the papers are usefuland less emotionally charged analyses byPring and Paechter Pring points to the needfor moral judgment that arises out ofinevitable conflict of values relating to theconduct of educational research and thus ofthe burden of virtue that rests on theresearcher. Paechter examines what may beclaimed to be good practice and judgment inthe construction of knowledge from theperspectives of different disciplinarystrengths. Whilst neither of the latter addsanything new, both could be useful back-ground material for doctoral students’appreciation of the wider nature of the fieldwithin which their own work rests.


Book Reviews

The book as a whole is somewhat disap-pointing. An examination of educationalresearch in terms of values rather thanmethods would be interesting and valuable,not least because educational provision is anarena for clashes of values behind inquiryinto what is the case, thought about whatought to be the case, and political decisionabout what will be the case; but a ruffledfeathers approach to advocating particularkinds of work is no substitute.

Hazel Francis, Emeritus Professor,Institute of Education, University of London.


Book Reviews

Evidence-Based Practice in EducationGary Thomas & Richard PringMaidenhead & New York: Open UniversityPress, 2004. ISBN: 0-335-21334-9 (Paperback).Pp. 244. £23.99.

!"Reviewed by James Ward

This book is the fifth in a series (ConductingEducational Research) which is directedtowards postgraduate students andreseachers in education and allied fields.Theseries is designed to provide readers withinsights into a variety of forms of educationalresearch and the methodological and tech-nical issues involved, this particular volumebeing concerned with evidence-based prac-tice (EBP). For this purpose the editors have,therefore, assembled a group of twelvedistinguished contributors who representconsiderable expertise and experience ineducational research and a wide range ofrelated problem areas.

There are 14 chapters. Following aninformative and occasionally provocativeintroduction by Thomas, the contents areorganised into three parts. Part 1 (What isevidence-based practice?) contains threeinteresting chapters bearing upon this topic.In the first of these (2), Davies addresses theneed for workers to maintain an up-to-dateawareness of the findings of research asmight be provided by systematic andcomprehensive reviews. Here particularreference is made to the work of the Camp-bell Collaboration, one of several inter-

disciplinary groups involved in such work.Sebba (3) then examines the developmentof evidence practice, a key element in this isthe participation of the potential users ofresearch. Next, Gough (4) discusses theneed for systematic research synthesis inpolicy formulation in what would be anexcellent introductory section for researchstudents.

Part 2 devotes three chapters to the useof ERB in three areas. In the first of theseAndrews (5) analyses some of the difficultiesof reconciling disparate approaches andmethodologies in EBP with reference toprojects undertaken by the English ReviewBoard. Similar problems are identified byCordingly (6) who, among other things,gives a short account of the work of the UKTeacher Training Agency in promotingteacher-conducted research. Here she distin-guishes between evidence-based andevidence-informed practice.

It is generally assumed that the applica-tion of scientific data combined with practi-tioner knowledge is fundamental to medicaldecision-making: most doctors routinelymake reference to their computers duringdiagnosis and treatment. For this reason Iwas intrigued by the two excellent chaptersby Eraut (7) and Perault (8) which deal withmedical issues in EBP. Among the manyimportant points made by Perault is thatdecision making in this area is concernedwith improving rather than understandinghuman capacity- surely a fundamental issuefor educational research?

In Chapter 9, Gallagher contributes aninteresting cross-cultural viewpoint, this timeon US special education. In her trenchantanalysis she reveals that much of its earlypromise is unfulfilled and that the field isnow better characterised by vituperativedebates, claims and counter-claims, excessivepoliticisation and name calling. Such prob-lems are not entirely confined to the US.

Part 3 (Questions) includes four chaptersand final comments by the second editor.Hammersley (10) provides a searchingcritique of ERB, pointing out that it hasbecome associated, in government thinkingat least, with the drive towards transparentaccountability, hence increasing politicalcontrol of the research process – this wouldnot be new to most applicants for researchgrants! Some of the same points are made byHodkinson and Smith (11) who, in exam-ining the relations between research, policyand practice, cite the Labour Party’stendency to make policies without referenceto much of the existing knowledge base in anarea. A central issue in educational researchconcerns how to make its findings practical.This is the theme for Elliott (12) who reviewsthe field at some length, referring to theviews of important contributors such asHargreaves, Stenhouse and Peters. A furtherinsight into this topic is provided byTorrance (11) who illustrates some of hispoints by reference to an action researchproject. Pring’s concluding comments (14)

revisit debates about the nature of evidenceand the unpredictability of human behav-iour. He identifies the need for continuousreviews of what is claimed as evidence,stressing the importance of the politicalcontext of research

Evidence-Based Practice in Education iscommended as a clearly written, balancedand authoritative contribution: Part 3 isparticularly instructive. It should undoubt-edly be well-received by its target reader-ships. For me its diverse content reflects thegrowth, in the UK at least, of educationalresearch as a vast social enterprise, involvedjust as much in serving political decisionmaking as in the minutiae of classroomteaching and organisation. From theperspective of an educational psychologist orspecial educator most of the problems andissues are familiar, sometimes distressinglyso. For instance, despite ostensibly positiveattitudes and a considerable level of support,it is commonly found that teachers (andadminstrators) are liable either to rejectresearch findings or misapply them – (I amsure that Deborah Gallagher would know allabout this). Otherwise I encountered muchnew material and especially enjoyed thereferences to medical practice and USspecial education.

Professor James Ward,University of Macquarie, Australia.


Book Reviews

Action Research for Improving Practice:A Practical GuideValsa KoshyLondon: Paul Chapman, 2005. ISBN: 1-4129-0755-1 (Hardback);ISBN: 1-4129-0756-X (Paperback).Pp. xvi+149. £60.00 (hbk); £17.99 (pbk).

!"Reviewed by Colin D. Elliott

This book does what it says in the title: itprovides a practical guide for anyonewanting to carry out action research. The

book has two broad aims: first, to give guide-lines for practitioners wanting to investigatehow to improve their professional practice;and second, to give guidance to students onhow to plan, conduct and report actionresearch for a dissertation. The book presup-poses no prior knowledge or training inresearch of any kind. The author teachesaction research methods in the area ofeducation and, in consequence, the book isprimarily aimed at classroom research.Nonetheless, it could be useful to those in

other helping professions. The titles of theseven chapters are self-explanatory. The firstchapter considers the nature of actionresearch. The following chapters cover theissues of getting started, reviewing literature,planning action, gathering data, analysingdata, and writing up and reporting theresearch.

Every chapter gives bulleted checklists ofuseful suggestions for would-be actionresearchers, as well as case examples illus-trating them. One good idea, mentionedmore than once, is the recommendation forthe researcher to have a ‘critical friend’ whocan give feedback on research ideas – thegood, the bad and the ugly. This is likely tobe valuable not only at the planning stage ofa piece of work, but at the point of analysingresults. Given the large number of sugges-tions that are made in the book, one omis-sion that I found surprising was arecommendation to researchers to look forthreats to the validity of their results andconclusions. A critical friend could behelpful in this regard, as we all wear concep-tual blinkers and are prone to bring ourfavoured perspective to bear in looking atany results.

It is when Prof. Koshy writes briefly aboutthe philosophy underlying action researchthat I get somewhat queasy. In Chapter 2, sherefers to the work of Carr and Kemmis intheir book Becoming Critical. She quotes theseauthors as asserting that ‘action research willentail indicating how it rejects positivistnotions of rationality, objectivity and truth infavour of a dialectical view of rationality’(p.24); and that ‘self-critical communities ofaction researchers enact a form of socialorganisation in which truth is determined bythe way it relates to practice’ (p.25). Really?This is certainly high-flown stuff, and reflectsthe way that action research has embracedpostmodernism with its dislike of objectivityand its suggestion that truth is relative. It isall so unnecessary. This sort of languagepresents action research as antagonistic totraditional, quantitative, ‘positivist’ research,whereas it can more productively be seen as

complementary. Time after time in theresearch community arguments break outabout supposedly mutually exclusivemethods, when they are nothing of the sort.In educational psychology, a good exampleof this is the contrast between curriculum-based measurement (CBM) and traditionalpsychometric measurement. Twenty yearsago I argued in the original British AbilityScales Handbook that they were complemen-tary methods. Additionally, action researchand psychometric tests are also complemen-tary. To give Valsa Koshy her due, she doesn’tmake these false contrasts between researchmethods, and one of her examples of actionresearch – looking at the role of handwritingin raising achievement (pp.71–79) – usesnumerical data.

Valsa Koshy emphasises that actionresearch is essentially cyclic and reflective. Ifa researcher wishes to improve someteaching method, observations are taken,action steps are prepared and tried out,more observations are gathered in a moni-toring process, and if necessary the actionsteps are modified, and so on. This is surelywhat medical practitioners, psychologistsand teachers have always done. Now ‘actionresearch’ has been given a name and aconceptual identity, and this has led tomethodology that gives us hopefully a moresystematic way of improving our practice. Forexample, consider the educational psycholo-gist’s work with an individual student. Infor-mation is obtained on a presenting problemfrom a number of sources. These mightinclude classroom observations, interviewswith teacher, parent and student, and theresults of psychometric tests (typically basedon traditional quantitative research). Allthese sources build a picture of the child:they add to our understanding of the natureof the problem. The next big question is, ‘Sowhat?’ What intervention may help to alle-viate the problem? Action research is thenext logical step for the clinician, to enablean effective intervention to be developed,applied and monitored. The initial datagathering phase of observations, interviews


Book Reviews

and test results underpins hypothesis gener-ation and a necessary precursor to the actionresearch on the intervention plan.

This book is written in a very clear style. Itcontains many examples and case studies toillustrate the processes step by step. Thepublisher is also to be congratulated on goodediting, design and production standards.One small criticism (does it reveal my age?) isthat the word ‘data’ is used in the singularrather than the plural (‘Data is’ and ‘Data

was’ rather than ‘Data are’ or ‘Data were’). Iknow this is the sloppiness of the age, butmust we perpetuate it? Enough of thiscarping! For anyone wanting to do an actionresearch project in the field of education,this book is a good guide, and a good buy.

Professor Colin D. Elliott, Visiting Professor,Graduate School of Education at the Universityof California, Santa Barbara.


Book Reviews

Including families in the learningcommunity, family centres and theexpansion of learningStewart Ranson & Heather RutledgeYork: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2005. ISBN: 1-85935-301-0 (Paperback).Pp. 85. £15.95.

!"Reviewed by Sheila Wolfendale

This book is published at a time whengovernment policy on lifelong learning andskills for life is pervasive within school-basedand adult education. The conception ofproviding ‘cradle to grave’ learning opportu-nities is woven into, for example, ‘Sure Start’(offering parents of pre-school children thechance to acquire basic skills includingparenting skills) and family literacy (alearning partnership between schools andfamilies). The term ‘family learning’ hasbeen used to encompass organisedprogrammes like family literacy as well asincidental, spontaneous activities around thehome and community, all of which denote‘lifelong learning’.

The promotion of lifelong learning viaprovision of various kinds, including thefamily centres which are the focus of thebook by Ransom and Rutledge, is informedby an ideology that postulates economic,social and personal benefits to familymembers and to society (see Schuller et al.,2004). Whilst the lifelong learning modelpurports to have universal applicability, inreality and in practice, specific initiatives areusually targeted at identified socio-economi-

cally disadvantaged communities, on thepremise that they need such intervention toboost their life chances.

This book explores the work of familycentres in encouraging learning andenabling participation in community activi-ties amongst disadvantaged families. Threefamily centres are studied in detail, selectedto reflect different geographical regions.

The book is divided into four parts. InPart 1 the authors set the scene by referenceto changing configurations of family compo-sition and they go on to examine currentpolicies and provision for family learning,which include the formation of ‘EducationAction Zones’ (EAZ), ‘Sure Start’, extendedschools, parenting programmes, and the‘Neighbourhood Renewal Programme’. Thehistory and provision of family centres arethen discussed. Four models that haveevolved are identified and defined, theseare: client-focussed family centres; service-support family centres; family and commu-nity centres, and the networked centre(p.13).

The authors comment ‘policy makers arenow acknowledging that, if these centres areto succeed in their objectives – whether oftreatment, or provision or participation -they have to become crucibles for learning’(p.13). The fourfold aims of the study arethen outlined.

Phase 1 of the study constituted amapping exercise, whereby a questionnairewas sent to 102 EAZs and 52 completed ques-tionnaires were returned. From this infor-

mation, the EAZ family centres were classi-fied and visits and telephone interviews with10 EAZs provided further illuminative back-ground information. For Phase 2 of thestudy three family centres were selected asthe key case studies (with visits to othercentres in the localities providing somecomparative data).

Part 2 of the book examines the ethosand functioning of the three centres, each ofwhich provide distinctly different familylearning activities which are described insome detail. Activities provided include earlyliteracy, playgroups, family support(including family cooking, art therapy),counselling, advice, parenting skills andfamily learning.

Part 3 of the book, entitled ‘Familieslearning to care differently’ constitutes akind of mosaic. It presents multi-facetedviews of some of the parents attending thecentres to illustrate a number of key identi-fied themes around the impact and effects offamily attendance at the centres. As ever,such individual testimonies are graphic,moving and powerful.

Part 4 is the conclusion, reminding thereader that ‘the research was designed tofocus progressively on the relationshipsbetween family centres and the familiesattending them’ (p.67). The authorsconsider that family centres made a distinc-tive contribution to changing the lives ofindividuals, of families and of communitiesin a number of ways that are discussed.

For this reviewer, the book seems to cometo a rather abrupt stop on page 73. I wouldhave welcomed further discussion thatlinked the findings back to broader contextsof the lifelong learning and family empower-ment agendas and commensurate local andnational initiatives designed to support theseaspirations. However, most disappointingly,these issues are merely hinted at obliquely inthe final pages.

Another omission is that there is nocritical review of the methodology and theinclusion of a technical appendix wouldhave been most helpful. Appendices 1 and 2reproduce the interview schedules used, butin the narrative there is no informationabout the exact number of participants norhow the interview data were analysed. Casestudy methods were mentioned en passant(cf. p.15) but were not appraised post hoc.

Despite these limitations, the book willbe a useful addition to the growing literatureon lifelong and family learning. It providesilluminative data about provision and aboutthe views of the recipients of the provision.As such, the book contributes to a growingevidence-base for the impact of social inter-vention measures such as family centres.

Professor Sheila Wolfendale,School of Psychology, University of East London.

ReferenceSchuller, T., Preston, J., Hammond, C., Brassett-

Grundy, A. & Bynner, J. (2004). The benefits oflearning, the impact of education on health, family lifeand social capital. London: Routledge/Falmer.


Book Reviews

Emotional Health and Well-BeingHelen Cowie, Chrissie Boardman, Judith Dawkins & Dawn JenniferLondon: Paul Chapman, 2004. ISBN: 0-7619-4355-2 (Paperback).Pp. 226. £18.99.

!"Reviewed by Bob Burden

I really wanted to like this book as I havegreat respect for what I know of the work of

some of the authors. I found instead that itinitially seemed somewhat superficial and, atthe same time, difficult to get into. Twentybrief chapters are provided, each linked tothe theme of mental health, particularly as itrelates to school and schooling.

The book is divided into three sections,the first of which consists of six chapterssetting the scene, so to speak. It addresseswhy schools should see their students’

emotional well-being as a issue of impor-tance and concern, and emphasises the needfor a whole school approach. The following12 chapters focus mainly on specific areaswhere things can go wrong and differentcategories of special need. Here we havebrief summaries of how to recognise anddeal with disaffection, bullying, sexualhealth, drug abuse, eating problems, autisticspectrum disorders, attention deficit disor-ders and more. The final section, incorpo-rating two chapters, suggests ways ofpredicting the difficulties that a school islikely to encounter in setting up policies, andemphasising the importance of review andevaluation.

One problem for me was that the authorstry to cover so much that they end up doinglittle justice to anything. Another is that theydon’t really seem to be clear exactly whatthey are trying to accomplish or to whomtheir text is directed. Each chapter includesseveral boxed vignettes illustrating how aparticular programme or technique hasworked in action, or how to introduce thesetechniques into a school’s pastoral curri-culum. Quite often these are interesting,occasionally they are really informative andhelpful, but sometimes that are just trite andone is left with the impression that a box wasthere to be filled because that was the formatthat had been agreed on

After reading the book through once, I set it aside for several weeks and then tried

to look at it again with fresh eyes. Thisenabled me to take a somewhat differentperspective. This is not a book to readthrough in one sitting, nor is it the place foranyone with even a reasonable amount ofknowledge about children’s social andemotional development to search for newinsights. It did make me reflect, however, onhow little time can be afforded in these daysof an overcrowded National Curriculum totraining new teachers in such matters. If, likeme, you are afforded one, one hour lectureon your POCE programme to cover thewhole of the pastoral curriculum, you couldso a lot worse than directing your students tothis book as a starting point. It will enablethem to get a feel of some important issueswhich can then be followed up in greaterdepth elsewhere. The general presentationis excellent and the writing style clear. Thereference section provides plenty of direc-tions for further inquiry.

On the whole, then, a book worth addingto one’s Education Department or Psycho-logical Service library, to be dipped intooccasionally and recommended to studentsand schools who are willing to take on boardthe vital message that schools are not justabout academic success, but don’t havemuch appreciation themselves of what canbe done about it.

Bob Burden, Professor of Educational Psychology,University of Exeter.


Book Reviews

ADHD in the Schools: Assessment andIntervention Strategies (2nd ed.)George J. DuPaul & Gary StonerLondon: Guilford Press, 2003. ISBN: 1-57230-862-1 (Hardback);ISBN: 1-59385-089-1 (Paperback).Pp. 330. £31.00 (hbk); £17.99 (pbk).

!"Reviewed by Linda Wheeler

Published as part of the Guilford School Practi-tioner Series, the second edition of this book iswritten by two experienced US researchersand psychologists.

Aimed primarily at school-based profes-sionals working with pupils with ADHD, thiswell-organised book offers practical sugges-tions for classroom assessment and interven-tion strategies. With discussions of recentresearch findings and many referencesoffering sources for further reading, thisbook should appeal to a wider audienceincluding teachers, psychologists, parents,clinicians and researchers. It is also acces-sible to the reader with little or no experi-ence of the challenges presented by thedisorder. Reference is made to the wealth of

published material on the concept of ADHDsince the first edition of the book in 1994.The second edition updates information inthree major areas: identification and assess-ment of students who might have ADHD;development and implementation of class-room-based intervention programs for thesestudents; and communication with physi-cians when stimulants are employed to treatthis disorder.

The first chapter offers a clear, conciseintroduction, beginning with five short caseexamples of children diagnosed with ADHD.These are well-chosen to reflect the wide-ranging differences in ADHD characteristicswhich might be encountered in the schoolsetting. They highlight the heterogeneity ofthe disorder, the types of symptoms displayedby individuals and some of the co-existingconditions they may experience. Therefollows a brief informative overview of theconcept of ADHD, followed by an outline ofthe contents of subsequent chapters.

Chapter 2 concentrates on screening andassessment in school settings. A short reviewof the use of DSM–IV criteria in school-basedassessment begins with a current definitionof ADHD, followed by a discussion of theadvantages and limitations of the DSMapproach in school settings. This is followedby a description of a behavioural assessmentapproach to the evaluation of ADHD inwhich the importance of multiple methodsof data collection across informants andsettings is stressed. The five stages of USschool-based evaluation of ADHD arepresented, with each stage in the assessmentmodel broken down clearly into subsectionsand described in detail. Readers in the UKwill be able to make comparisons with assess-ment procedures in UK special education. Inthe following chapter on ADHD andlearning difficulties an interesting section onpossible causal connections between ADHDand academic problems outlines threehypothesised relationships. Limitations inthe findings of empirical investigations arediscussed, centring on problems associatedwith the inconsistencies in conceptual and

operational definitions used. Chapter 4offers up-to-date information on the impor-tance of early identification and interventionfor young children who might be at risk forADHD. Two approaches to screening in thisage group are described: classroom-basedscreening (proactive) and individualscreening (reactive). Evidence is providedon three treatment approaches:psychotropic medication, pre-school-basedbehaviour intervention and parent educa-tion in the use of behavioural interventions.The authors identify a gap between researchand practice with regard to community-based prevention and intervention. Theyadvocate greater involvement of schoolpsychologists in the prevention of difficultiesassociated with ADHD.

The next three chapters form the mainfocus of the book and concentrate onschool-based intervention strategies.Chapter 5 begins with clear guidelines forthe design, implementation and evaluationof interventions. There follows a section onexamples of contingency managementprocedures. Several instructional and self-management strategies are also clearlydescribed and the chapter concludes with ashort section on teacher support systems.Medication therapy is discussed in detail inChapter 6. The first section provides basicdetails of psychotropic medications used inthe treatment of ADHD symptoms. This isespecially useful to the reader from a non-medical background. A summary of thissection states that there is a need for moreinvestigation into alternative drugs withlarger samples. The second section describesthe behavioural effects of stimulants. It thendiscusses dose-response and individualresponsivity, normalisation of classroomfunctioning, and the use of a combination ofmedication and behaviour therapy. It endswith a short summary of the possible sideeffects of Central Nervous System (CNS)stimulants. The final short sections cover thecommunication of results with theprescribing physician, the ongoing moni-toring of medication response and the limi-


Book Reviews

tations of stimulant medication treatment.Chapter 7 examines several approaches thatcan be used in addition to classroom behav-iour strategies and medication and suggestsfactors to consider before recommending atreatment. The summary stresses the impor-tance of school-based professionals not onlybeing aware of empirically sound treatmentsfor ADHD but also being familiar with lesseffective interventions. This final pointcould prove particularly useful in the schoolsetting where parents might seek advicefrom school personnel as to the effectivenessof novel treatments.

Chapter 8 clearly highlights the necessityfor effective communication and multi-professional collaboration, as ‘the assessmentof ADHD … is a process involving multipleinformants and multiple methods across multiplesettings’ (p.241). An important distinction ismade between DSM diagnoses and educa-tional services. The DSM–IV classificationsystem uses nomothetic assessment tools andprocedures (i.e. comparing children withone another), whereas decisions on educa-tional interventions are more usefullyrelated to idiographic approaches (i.e.comparisons of an individual over time).Another significant factor to be consideredis the variability in the behaviour andresponse to treatment of children diagnosedwith ADHD. The final chapter eloquentlysummarises the book and clearly identifiesfuture directions for school-based researchand investigation. The authors conclude thatsignificant work needs to be undertaken inseveral key areas: meeting the needs ofadolescents with ADHD; delineating theroles and responsibilities of school-based‘case managers’; teacher training in ADHD;and more research to determine practical,time-efficient ways of dealing with ADHD.

The authors are to be congratulated onthe outstanding quality of this well-struc-tured book. It is a useful addition to availableresources, offering an extensive review of themajor issues confronting school profes-sionals in understanding and treating pupilswith ADHD in mainstream education. The

case examples clearly illustrate key conceptsincluding the wide-ranging characteristicsdisplayed by pupils who may have thedisorder. These examples will aid the school-based practitioner in the identification andassessment process. The detailed breakdownof the stages involved in US school-basedevaluation in Chapter 2 will be of particularinterest to American school-based profes-sionals. The information provided in eachstage can be utilised by international readersand comparisons may be made with otherspecial education assessment procedures. Itwould have been useful if the authors hadprovided some idea of the time scalesinvolved in the assessment process in the US.They refer to this assessment model as ‘anidealised model that must be adapted for practicalapplication and local level’ (p.58). Whilstacknowledging that individual cases maydiffer, an approximate time period couldhave been suggested or an indication couldhave been included in the case examplesused in this section. Tables and figures areused effectively throughout the book inorder to clarify several features. Particularexamples of these include the aforemen-tioned five stages of the US assessmentprocedure and also the steps required in theundertaking and evaluating of medicationtrials in schools (Chapter 6). Examples ofreproducible letters, assessment sheets andsample handouts will be of use to schoolpractitioners.

Professionals from backgrounds otherthan education will derive a sound under-standing of the practicalities of multi-profes-sional assessment and interventions forpupils displaying ADHD characteristics. Theimportance of effective collaboration andcommunication between educational andhealth professionals is well highlighted.Researchers and students will find numerousdiscussions of up-to-date research studiesand investigations together with many refer-ences offering sources for additional readingand suggestions for further research. Mostparents and readers from non-specialistbackgrounds will find this book reasonably


Book Reviews

easy to read. In particular they may find ithelpful to be provided with an easily under-standable list of all available types of drugtreatments, together with tablet sizes anddose ranges. However, some non-profes-sional readers may find that there are toomany references and some of the figuresused to show, for example, changes in doseresponse and behaviour, may be a little diffi-cult to understand. The section dealing withapparently less effective adjunctive interven-tions should prove particularly useful toschool professionals and to concernedparents. As a teacher, having beenapproached in the past by parents anxious todo the best for their child, it would havebeen helpful to have had access to this typeof information.

Beginning with the enthusiastic ‘Fore-word’ written by Russell Barkley and contin-uing through to the comprehensive list ofreferences, this exceptional book is wellworth reading. It is a valuable contributionto the literature and should be recom-mended reading for anyone with an interestin the assessment and treatment of ADHD inschools.

Linda Wheeler, Research Student,University College Worcester.


Book Reviews

Self-esteem: The costs and causes oflow self-worthNicholas EmlerYork: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2001. ISBN: 1-84263-020-2 (Paperback).Pp. 97. £15.95.

!"Reviewed by Tony Cline

The aim of this book is to ‘summarise what isknown from research about the nature ofself-esteem, its consequences and itsantecedents’. The focus is on self-esteem inchildhood and adolescence. Emler outlinessome of the popular views of what self-esteemis and what it does to a person and tracesthese views back to their roots in early scien-tific psychology. He reviews the ways in whichthe construct has been measured and exam-ines arguments that have been put forregarding it as a unitary quality and forrelating it closely to other psychologicalattributes. There is a detailed analysis ofevidence for the behavioural consequencesof low self-esteem with particular attention toits possible role in social problems such asdelinquency, drug abuse, teenage pregnancy,racism and attempted suicide. He considersthe roots of self-esteem, attempting toprovide an overview of ‘what is known about

the conditions in childhood that result in lowself-esteem’. Finally he offers a critical reviewof the varieties of intervention that have beenclaimed to be successful in raising self-esteemin this age group.

One of the strengths of the book is itsdetailed analysis of the logic underlyingclaimed links between low self-esteem andsome of the social problems of childhoodand adolescence. Emler shows how low self-esteem might impact on particular aspects ofdevelopment as a direct contributory causethat is independent of other causes (e.g.leading to risk-taking in sexual behaviourthat carries a higher risk of an unwantedpregnancy) or as a mediator that links somecause to an effect (e.g. linking pooracademic results at school to increased riskof pregnancy in adolescence). Alternativelyit might be an indirect or mediated cause(e.g. through making teenage girls moresusceptible to peer influence) or a moder-ator or a correlated outcome or an effect. Heanalyses these different routes to correlationwith meticulous care. In a typical passage, forexample, he unpicks the evidence relating tothe (not very strong) relationship betweenlow self-esteem and weak educational attain-ments. He argues against those writers who

exaggerate the agency of the construct.Level of global self-esteem, he points out,does not have much impact on what youngpeople want or try to achieve in this domain– though it does influence what they expectto manage. Those with high self-esteem canshow greater persistence, but their effortsmay not bear fruit because they are notnecessarily well-directed. The main conclu-sion is that self-esteem is ‘only triviallyrelated to later educational attainment’. In arather disappointing coda he notes thehigher correlations found with a slightlydifferent construct, education-specific self-esteem, but chooses not to examine the liter-ature on such variants in detail.

Occasionally the admirable effort tocover a great deal of ground in as concise away as possible leads Emler to give so littleinformation about a study that one cannotform a judgement about the argument he isoffering in connection with it. For example,in his analysis of the use of indirect measuresof self-esteem as an alternative to self-reportshe queries the interpretation that Farnhamet al. (1999) placed on their findings. It isdifficult for readers of this book to engagecritically with the issue as we are not told thebasis of the findings that Farnham and hiscolleagues reported. That is perhaps aninevitable difficulty in a review of this kind,given space limitations.

This review is authoritative and balanced.It is presented in a lucid prose in a well-organ-ised format. Connections are made topopular and media representations of self-esteem to which this unsensational volume

may be treated as a corrective. The theme ofwhat is known about the value that youngpeople in our society put on themselves is animportant theme. Yet, as a whole, this is a curi-ously bland text. The research on whichEmler chooses to focus mostly relies onsummative questionnaire measures of self-esteem. He writes of ‘sources’ and ‘conse-quences’ of low self-esteem with littleattention to theoretical and empirical workon the processes by which it may itself developor may impact on the subsequent develop-ment of an individual. This review can berelied on for an authoritative account of onepart of the story, but it is only one part andmay not include the denouement that readersof this journal will be most eager to see.

Nonetheless, much can be forgiven to anauthor who ends a review of this topic byreminding us that the possession of high self-esteem is not always seen in an entirely posi-tive way. Terms like narcissistic, arrogant,smug and conceited have been used todescribe such people. Evidence reviewed byEmler links the characteristic with racismand violence. He ends persuasively with aplea to recognise ‘the benefits of modera-tion’ in this as in so much else. If the bookhas significant limitations, it does achievetriumphantly its most urgent objective - tochallenge the sentimental nonsense andcommercial exploitation that are oftendirected at those with low self-esteem in pros-perous societies.

Professor Tony Cline,Centre for Education Studies, University of Luton.


Book Reviews

Homework: The evidenceSusan HallamLondon: Institute of Education, Universityof London, 2004. ISBN: 0-85473-695-6 (Paperback).Pp. 118. £9.99.

!"Reviewed by Nigel Hastings

Like motherhood and apple pie, homeworkis an aspect of educational practice that is

currently generally taken as self-evidentlygood. While parents may complain that theirchildren receive too little and agencies mayoccasionally publish guidance on how muchtime teachers should be expecting childrenof differing ages to be devoting to it eachweek, its purposes and benefits are rarelyquestioned. But that is just what this briefand tightly written book sets out to do, byreviewing evidence of how homework is

used, of how pupils engage with tasks set ashomework and of the effects of that engage-ment on progress and attainment.

The scene-setting ‘Introduction’ effectivelyestablishes the idea that research on home-work is not entirely recent, with UK-basedsurveys from 1928 and 1935 as well as morerecent international comparisons beingbriefly reviewed, and reminds readers ofrelevant recent policy developments, at leastin England. The next two chapters focus onthe effects of homework, primarily on attain-ment, and immediately reveal that the term‘homework’ embraces a wide variety of typesof activity, set and pursued for a diversity ofpurposes. Research relating to differences inpractice and effects relating to time spent,subject, age group, attainment and schoolpolicies are covered in Chapter 2, whileChapter 3 considers the less well researchedaspect of homework purposes. The nextthree chapters examine published evidenceabout the beliefs, experiences and practicesof teachers, pupils and, finally, parents. Inconclusion, Sue Hallam draws together theoverall picture arising from her review ofresearch and comment from more than 300cited sources in a chapter entitled ‘Futuredirections’.

So what does that overall picture looklike? As with so many important educationalquestions, what emerges is not the set ofdefinitive answers that we would like. Inquality of design, scale and setting,published research varies, but there aresome trends in findings, as well as indica-tions of how research questions could moreusefully be cast and pursued. Firstly, at bothprimary and secondary school levels, home-work does relate to progress and attainment,but the relationship is curvilinear withrespect to time. In other words, the moretime spent on homework, the greater thebenefit … up to a point, ‘with moderatelevels of homework being the most effective’(p82). However, even at ‘moderate levels’,the impact on attainment is modest. In prac-tice, the way homework is used by schools,and viewed by pupils and parents, results in

higher attaining pupils being given andcompleting more than their lower attainingpeers, thereby increasing the differencesbetween them.

Although the amount of time spent onhomework is so often the predominantconcern of parents, teachers and a succes-sion of education ministers, the clearest issueto emerge from this review is that, whileteachers and schools as institutions empha-sise the importance of homework, the atten-tion they give to planning, explaining,marking, providing feedback on, and incor-porating activities completed for homeworkinto subsequent classroom lessons is variableand limited. Too often, it seems, more atten-tion is given to non-completion of home-work than to acknowledging and building onwork that has been completed. In discussingthese issues, Sue Hallam moves from thestance of independent, critical reviewer ofevidence, which has characterised the wayshe has written preceding chapters, intoprescriptive mode. In the closing pages sheoffers well substantiated recommendationsfor how schools and teachers could, andshould, make better use of the opportunitythat homework provides for supportinglearning. While the time pupils spend onhomework is important, more is not better.What would substantially improve the qualityof both the experience and benefits ofhomework, Hallam argues, is if schools,teachers, and in turn their pupils, wereclearer about the purposes of homework andits relationship to intended learning, both ingeneral and in relation to each specificactivity, and if homework activities weremore explicitly followed though. Interven-tion studies, developed to evaluate just suchan approach, support this view.

This is not the first review of researchevidence about homework to be published.In addition to having the obvious contempo-rary merit of being up to date, this iscertainly not its only commendable quality.Although not written with a lay audience asits target readership, Sue Hallam’s style isaccessible to the serious-minded parent as


Book Reviews

well as to the student of education and otherresearchers. Those who could gain mostfrom these 118 pages are teachers and head-teachers seeking to enhance the contribu-tion that homework could yet make to theirpupils’ progress and attainment.

Professor Nigel Hastings,Nottingham Trent University.


Book Reviews

Understanding Psychology (2nd ed.)Barbara WoodsLondon: Hodder & Stoughton, 2004. ISBN: 0340-88668-4 (Paperback).Pp. 182. £15.99.

!"Reviewed by Francine Brett

Understanding Psychology is a good introduc-tion to the work and ideas of psychologists.

Each chapter covers a topic on the Speci-fication and ends with sample exam ques-tions for GCSE Psychology. The book isattractively laid out with each chaptercarrying ‘boxes’ of text that students may useas activities. The key points are in bold text.

Woods provides comprehensive coverageof the latest AQA GCSE Specification forPsychology. It provides an ideal introductionfor all those interested in the subject. There

are 14 chapters encompassing both Socialand Cognitive psychology. In addition,Chapter 13 takes a look at research methodsand Chapter 14 discusses ‘planning, carryingout and writing up’ an Investigation.

Although compact (182 pages), Under-standing Psychology is clear and concise andan ‘easy’ read. At the back there is a Glossary,Further Reading section, Websites and anIndex.

In short, Barbara’s book ‘does what it sayson the tin’! It can be used as a textbook orout of general interest and will no doubt bean invaluable tool for teachers and lecturersdelivering GCSE level Psychology tostudents.

Francine Brett,Consultant Psychologist.

Teaching and Learning Lessons fromPsychologyRichard FoxOxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. ISBN: 1-4051-1487-8 (Paperback).Pp. 304. £16.99.

!"Reviewed by Jeremy Swinson

The degree and extent to which the disci-pline of psychology should feature in thetraining of teachers has in recent yearsbecome the subject of considerable debate.If anyone doubted the importance thatpsychology plays in both our understandingchildren’s learning and also the processes ofmany aspects of teaching then they would dowell to take a look at the extensive evidencecontained in this book.

Richard Fox recently retired from hispost at Exeter University after a long career

as teacher, educational psychologist, univer-sity lecturer and teacher trainer. As onemight expect, given the extensive breath ofexperience of the author, the book benefitsfrom not only his deep and extensive knowl-edge of psychology but also his considerablepractical experience of working withteachers and especially his role as a teachertrainer.

Like Gaul this book is in three parts. Part1 consists of ‘a course for beginningteachers.’ It has sections on the repertoire ofteaching, the social context of the classroom,lesson planning and, of course, how to keeporder. This section is informed by whatdescribed as ‘craft knowledge’. It containsnumerous vignettes of recorded episodesfrom real lessons. These are a joy to read,add to the understanding of the issues andgive the whole text a credibility that is often

missing from other published work in thisfield.

Part 2, looks at the main areas of researchthat have contributed to our understandingof learning, teaching and motivation. Thereis an extensive debate on innate capacity andcultural learning, chapters on human andparticularly student motivation, as well assections on intuitive learning, individualdifferences and the development of themind. This section contains examples of anumber of key research studies includingdialogue from students which both informand illustrate the reader’s understanding ofthe issues.

Part 3 is concerned with issues of interestto a more experienced teacher. It covers arange of topics including, special needs,bullying, child abuse, the impact of genderand ethnicity on learning, assessment andfinally a discussion of professional growthand development. As in the other sections ofthe book it contains numerous examples ofgood practice that both illuminate anddevelop the points being made. The bookends with a complete transcript of a lesson,which readers are encouraged to analyse inconjunction with earlier chapters. Thisproved to be an extremely enjoyable exercisefor this reviewer, and like other of examplesof verbatim recording of teachers andchildren, really brings this book to life.Finally there is a useful glossary of educa-tional terms. Every chapter of the book, andthere are 16 in all, ends with a set of five to10 questions, which are ‘designed to checkyour understanding of the chapter’. Whilsthe may have retired, obviously Richard Foxremains a teacher at heart!

This book has a number of majorstrengths. It is broad in the range of issues itaddresses and it appears to cover these in anadmirable degree of depth. Above all itapplies detail knowledge of psychology tothe whole of the education process. It isespecially strong on the application ofpsychological theory and research to class-

room practice. The book, therefore, is bothscholarly and also very practical. There maywell be other books on the market coversome of the individual topics in this book ingreater detail, but I cannot think of anyother single volume that covers the broadrange of issues as well as Fox.

Naturally Fox does not cover all the areasof teaching practice with the same degree ofdepth. Chapter 10 on influencing studentmotivation includes only a short discussionon the use of punishment and the role ofschool exclusions. An example is given ofgood school practice in which one primaryschool successfully reduced their exclusions.Inevitably, this example would not be suitablein many other settings and given that thereduction of exclusions is a key issue espe-cially in secondary schools, its thin coveragein the book is one source of weakness.

According to the author the book isaimed at anyone interested in teaching. Itwill undoubtedly be of particular interest tothose training to teach and those teachersengaged in further study. As Ted Wraggpoints out in his introduction, teaching is anart form with a scientific and philosophicalfoundation. Teaching is also a professionalactivity which can and should be evidencedbased. The ultimate strengths of this bookare two-fold. First it admirably demonstratesthe extensive contribution that psychologyhas to our understanding of teaching andsecond it demonstrates very clearly that thescientific methodology used by psychologisthas provided much evidence to supporteffective professional practice. This book is,therefore, to be highly recommended. Itplaces psychology at the centre of our under-standing of teaching and learning anddemonstrates this clearly to its readers,whether they are teachers in training ormore experienced colleagues wishing toextend their knowledge.

Dr. Jeremy SwinsonWitherslack Schools.


Book Reviews

The Making of a Therapist: A PracticalGuide for the Inner JourneyLouis CozzolinoNew York/London: W.W. Norton, 2004. ISBN: 0-3937-0424-6 (Hardback).Pp. 213. £22.00.

!"Reviewed by Peter Jenkins

This book is about the two journeys madesimultaneously in the process of learning tobecome a counsellor, therapist or practisingpsychologist. As the author puts it, theseinclude ‘one outward into the professionalworld and the other inward, through thelabyrinths of our own psyches’. Essentially, itmakes a case for practitioners to be as atten-tive to their own inner, psychological make-up as to the more skilled and technical sideof their role. The author is a Professor ofPsychology at Pepperdine University in theUS, and is himself an experienced therapist.Fortunately, however, this book is not aboutwhat a brilliant psychologist he is, but a fairlyhumbling exploration of the slips, mistakesand assumptions which many of us willrecognise from our own practice experience.

The book is divided into three sections,covering getting through first sessions,getting to know your clients and getting toknow yourself. The first section is helpful onacknowledging the nervous anxiety facingthe beginning practitioner, with the advicethat the client is probably even more nervousthan the professional in this situation! Thesecond and third sections will still be usefulfor the beginner, but also have somethingvaluable for more experienced practitioners,particularly if somewhat settled into an estab-lished routine. Cozzolino explores thepersonal and emotional aspects of thera-peutic work, such as acknowledging andrepairing mistakes, coping with silence andsexual attraction to clients, and the all-too-rarely mentioned issue of dealing with tired-ness and fatigue. He suggests ‘shuttling’between different aspects of awareness, bothinternal and external, as a way of shiftingfocus and constantly recalibrating the practi-tioner’s energies and focus.

The book reads easily and well, with anapproachable and very human style ofdelivery. Some aspects of the book may beless welcome for some readers, however. Theauthor writes using a largely psychodynamiclanguage, referring to splitting and makinginterpretations, which may jar with some.Despite this, the author is clearly not makingclaims for the sole effectiveness or value ofthis approach, as there is a decidedly inte-grative and inclusive flavour to much of thematerial presented here. Similarly, theadvice on how to collect fees from resistantclients may be less than useful for most prac-titioners working in either the educationsystem or the NHS. Again, at one stage, headvises bringing in the client’s friends orfamily to gain a wider perspective on the keyissues, advice which will probably appeal tosome readers rather than to others, who maybe more committed to mainly individualwork with clients.

Overall, this is a useful and engagingbook for beginning and also for more expe-rienced practitioners working in the field ofcounselling and psychology. There are somespecific and valuable tips. These include thekey significance of conveying hope of thepotential for change to clients, of making‘no self-harm’ contracts with suicidal andvulnerable clients and of recognising therole of strong feelings evoked in workingcross-culturally. The book will be useful bothas a beginner’s guide to practice and also asan orientation manual for experienced prac-titioners wanting to re-examine and reflecton their practice. It is, thankfully, not yetanother book about the superiority of theauthor’s chosen model of therapy, but a cele-bration of the ordinary day-to-day struggle tobe ‘good enough’, to use Donald Winnicott’sphrase, in the human and imperfect art ofundertaking therapeutic work with clients.

Peter Jenkins,University of Salford.


Book Reviews

Behaviour Recovery (2nd ed.)Bill RogersLondon: Paul Chapman, 2004. ISBN: 1-4129-0145-6 (Paperback).Pp. 203. £18.99.

!"Reviewed by Peter Wakefield

Bill Rogers is a teacher, university lecturer,distinguished author and educationalconsultant who lectures across the UK andAustralasia, particularly in the field of behav-iour management. This book is specificallydesigned for teachers and other practi-tioners concerned with developing positivewhole school strategies that contribute to thedevelopment of a conducive learning envi-ronment. The key tenets of BehaviourRecovery are that children can be taught pro-social behaviours that: (i) enable them tolearn more effectively and as a consequence,achieve successful outcomes; and (ii)improve their social skills and enable themto interact with peers and adults in ways thatgains their approval and enhances theirsocial standing. In addition, BehaviourRecovery gives an emphasis to early interven-tion and the importance of providing an in-school framework of structural andemotional support for the class teacher.

The book is presented in an accessibleand coherent manner. The eight chapterscan be reviewed in four sections:! Background information about the

pathology of behaviour;! Key features of Behaviour Recovery;! Intervention strategies; and! Working with partners to facilitate

Behaviour Recovery.The Appendix is an integral aspect of thebook, providing photocopiable ideas forsupportive materials relating to the Behav-iour Recovery programme. The pictorialillustrations enhance the reader’s apprecia-tion of specific strategies whilst thediagrams/tables offer both an overview ofthe programme’s management and in otherinstances, a synthesis of particular features.The author offers some practical suggestionsfor ‘recovering’ behaviour through the use of

mirroring, picture cues, questioning strate-gies, modelling and rehearsal and self-talk.

Behaviour Recovery focuses upon behav-ioural variables that can be modified by care-fully planned interventions Although sociallearning theory is an underpinning featureof Behaviour Recovery, there is also anacknowledgement that achieving successfuloutcomes with children whose behaviourchallenges the authority of the teacher, reliesupon certain other factors. These includecreating a learning environment in whichchildren feel safe, valued and respected andensuring that the curriculum is accessibleand expectations for achieving success arerealistic. Over recent years increasing pres-sure from the DfES to raise standards in UKschools and maintain the movement towardsmore inclusive schools has placed consider-able additional burdens upon teachers.Within Behaviour Recovery consideration isgiven to the role that peers can play in medi-ating the inappropriate behaviour ofchildren whose behaviour can disrupt thelearning for all children. These strategies,together with whole class responses such asclass meetings (or circle time), can be incor-porated within the day to day managementof the classroom. The author stresses theimportance of motivating the child tochange their unwanted behaviours: ‘you ownyour own behaviour – you can make better choicesthat will see you feeling better as you behave better’(p.57). Children who have an extendedhistory of failure in school need to see avalue in behaving in a pro-social manner.Often, compliance with rules is not deemed‘cool’ in children whose dysfunctional homelife may not provide the structure andparental guidance children need in order tomake decisions that will have positiveoutcomes for them. Encouraging children tovoice their views regarding their educationalexperience is an important aspect of devel-oping self-advocacy skills, self confidenceand positive self esteem.

Rogers indicates the importance of devel-oping an appropriate whole school rewardsystem that is not based solely on extrinsic


Book Reviews

rewards. Children need to perceive a valuein a reward or ‘celebration’. Encouragingchildren to be successful can be achievedthrough verbal encouragement, non-verbalsignals and peer approbation. In respect ofthe vexed question of sanctions or ‘correctivediscipline’ (p.96), the author offers somesensible, practical and non-coercive sugges-tions to teachers. The importance attachedto pupils appreciating that they have to beaccountable for their behaviour is stressed,together with an acknowledgement thatsome children’s behaviour can be extremeand require interventions that necessitatesupport from senior colleagues in school.The section on ‘time-out’ is particularlyinteresting and raises the question of pupils’rights and the wider ethical issues of workingone to one with pupils which is an integralaspect of the Behaviour Recovery process.

Whilst the book contains a plethora ofsensible and practical ideas for managingchildren whose behaviour disrupts thelearning of other children, some of thestrategies are not those that could be realisti-cally undertaken by a busy teacher respon-sible for the learning of 30 children. In theUK, the increased use of teaching assistantsprovides a promising vehicle for many of theBehaviour Recovery strategies to be employed.The book is not cognisant of the contempo-

rary context of the typical UK classroom,nor, for example, in respect of strategiesregarding bullying advocated in recent DfESinitiatives (Charter for Bullying, 2000). A keyfeature of Behaviour Recovery advocated byRogers is described as ‘basic civics andmanners’ (p.21). To enable UK teachers toconnect with these concepts, mentionedshould be made to the citizenship initiative.There is little doubt that a teacher may findthe ideas and strategies for their implemen-tation a welcome addition to their owntoolbox of ideas. Despite this, it is apparentthat the literature alluded to by Rogers,apart from a few exceptions, is dated andfails to capitalise upon more recent casestudy material and initiatives from the DfESrelating to behaviour such as links betweenbehaviour and attendance and behaviourand learning and teaching. These pointsshould not seriously detract from the factthat the book provides sound advice, prac-tical ideas and is written in a style that is non-threatening. Teachers, especially newlyqualified teachers, and teaching assistantswould benefit from absorbing these ideasinto their practice.

Peter Wakefield,University College Worcester.


Book Reviews

REVIEW PAPER

Handbook of Emotional andBehavioural DifficultiesPeter Clough, Philip Garner, John T. Pardeck &Francis Yuen (Eds.)London: Sage Publications, 2005. ISBN: 0-7619-4066-9 (Hardback).Pp. 440. £85.00.

!"Reviewed by Eddie McNamara

The editors of this publication write ‘Thisbook has been written to enable individual chap-ters to be useful resources for students, academicsand practitioners’. The reviewer would like toassociate himself with all three target groups

– but perhaps ‘practitioner’ would be themost appropriate description with regard tothe stance taken when reviewing this publi-cation.

The book is divided into four parts. Part 1: Context and Terminologies (six chap-ters).Part 2. Roots and Causes (seven chapters).Part 3. Strategies and Interventions (ninechapters).Part 4. Some Points of Tension and Develop-ment (five chapters).In all, it comprises 27 chapters contributedto by 46 authors. The majority of the 46contributors are drawn from the UK and the US.

The overall aim of this Handbook is ‘toprovide a systematic and comprehensiveoverview of a series of often related themeswhich underpin theoretical and philoso-phical approaches to pupils perceived ashaving Emotional and Behavioural Difficul-ties (EBDs) and their realisation in bothpolicy and provision’. The particular aims ofthe editors are to allow the reader toconsider children and young people withEBDs from three perspectives and levels.

The editors also claim that the themes ortopics are organised to highlight: (1) keyprinciples or characteristics; (2) examples oftheir impact on current practice; and (3)issues arising for debate.

My first reaction to perusing the contentswas that it was most certainly a referencebook and not a ‘practitioner book’. Thus, asfar as the reviewer was concerned, thepurpose of the book, as described on theflyleaf, has been achieved namely, ‘This bookhas been written to enable individual chapters tobe useful resources for students, academics andpractitioners’.

The review strategy I adopted was to gofirstly to those sections of the Handbookwhich were of particular interest and then‘work away’ to the other sections. Thus Part3, ‘Strategies and Interventions’ was thereviewer’s first port of call, followed by Part4, ‘Some Points of Tension and Develop-ment’, then Part 1, ‘Context and Terminolo-gies’ and finally Part 2, ‘Roots and Causes.

Part 3 – Strategies and Interventions.There are nine chapters in this section. Thefirst, contributed by John Visser, attempts toaddress the issue ‘What Makes What Works,Work?’ Visser writes to the theme of identi-fying ‘eternal verities’. Eternal verities hedefines as core factors that must be present ifany intervention is to meet successfully theneeds of children and young people withSocial, Emotional and Behavioural Difficul-ties (SEBD). The verities that Visser identi-fies appear to be a drawing together of thepersonal characteristics and belief systems ofeffective workers in the field of EBD. I feel

that this contribution was misplaced in thesection ‘Strategies and Interventions’. I hadhoped that this contribution might be anSEBD equivalent to the work of Prochaskaand DiClemente. From an analysis of themyriad of therapeutic approaches engagedin at the time of their work (over 150) theydistilled out a series of stages of change thatpeople go through – whether the change beself change or change achieved within a ther-apeutic situation.

I next turned with a degree of enthu-siasm to the chapter written by Bill Rogers.Bill Rogers is a practitioner whose work willbe known to many readers of this review.Rogers’s chapter, ‘Teaching Students withEmotional Behavioural Disorders’, fitssnugly within the Part 3 section of the book– ‘Strategies and Interventions’. Roger’s isboth rigorous, persuasive and practical in hispresentation of effective strategies to meetthe needs of children with SEBD

The next chapter in Part 3 is aboutpreventative approaches at the school-widesystems level – a contribution made by Lewisand Newcomer. The chapter title is‘Reducing Problem Behaviour throughSchool-wide Systems of Positive BehaviourSupport’. The authors of this chapter areUS-based, but the first paragraph of theircontribution reflects current UK Govern-ment concerns par excellent, namely ‘One ofthe greatest challenges confronting educators is toprovide a positive learning and teaching environ-ment in schools with high rates of discipline prob-lems’. In this chapter the authors wereputting forward an American concept ofPositive Behaviour Support (PBS) which isalready paralleled in this country. For thePBS recommends positive pupil manage-ment structures to be in place at the systems,classroom and individual pupil level. Such amodel has already long been espoused in theBritish Educational System cf Building a BetterBehaved School (Galvin et al., 1990). Readingtheir brief reference to environmentalapproaches immediately brought to mindthe philosophy/resource of Framework forIntervention (Birmingham City Council,


Book Reviews

1998) – a UK model that has well developedpractices to identify environmental factorscontributing to problem behaviour and de-emphasises within child factors. Over all Iconcluded ‘nothing new here’. Lots of UKresources and initiatives could have provideda more valuable contribution for UK readersof this Handbook and probably in a moresemantically digestible fashion.

The chapter following the ‘School-wideSystems of Positive Behaviours Support’ istitled ‘Building School-wide Behaviour Inter-ventions that Really Work’. Again, parallelswith Building a Better Behaved School areapparent.

I was at a loss to understand how three ofthe chapters came to be included in thissection. The chapters concerned are ‘Advo-cacy for Students with Emotional and Behav-ioural Disorders’, ‘Voices from the Margins:the Perceptions of Pupils with EBD abouttheir Educational Experiences’ and‘Involving ‘Students with Emotional andBehavioural Difficulties in their OwnLearning: a Transnational Perspective’.

In contrast, McGraw’s chapter, ‘Direc-tions in Teaching Social Skills to Studentswith specific EBDs’ was appropriately locatedand proved very interesting at the strategiclevel. The author starts the chapter with theassertion that lack of social competencevirtually defines an emotional and behav-ioural disorder. After defining ‘social compe-tence’ she goes on to focus on the identifiedspecific social learning needs of students‘with EBDs’ – namely ADHD, ConductDisorder and the Anxiety Disorders.The lastchapter of this section is ‘The Pupils SupportBase in the Scottish Secondary School: AnAlternative to Exclusion’ – contributed byHamill. The description of the modusoperandi and the issues raised reflect veryclosely those associated with LearningSupport Units in English Secondary Schools.

I was disappointed that only two, orperhaps three, of the chapters in the section‘Strategies and Interventions,’ fit comfortably.They are the chapters by Bill Rogers, HelenMcGraw and, perhaps Hamill. My expectation

when going to a section including theheading ‘interventions’ was to find learnedreviews of promising interventions such asthose currently favoured in the UK – inter-ventions such as ‘circle time, ‘circle offriends’, ‘solution focused approaches’,‘cognitive behavioural interventions’,‘emotional literacy programmes’ (for school,small group and individuals) and so on. Theabsence of such relevant current content mayhave predisposed me to a negative cognitivebias when looking at this section.

The major intervention paradigm shiftover the last two decades or so has been themove from the behavioural paradigm to acognitive-behavioural paradigm. This hasallowed for an integration of behaviouraland counselling approaches in the EBDfield. Yet in this book of 440 pages there isonly one reference to cognitive behaviouralinterventions – and this was not in the Strate-gies and Intervention section.

Further, there is no mention of the modelof the Stages of Change, yet some would claimthat this model is precipitating a major para-digm shift in how professionals understandand facilitate behaviour change. What of theother sections?. Consistent with my practice ofgoing to the areas that interested me most,the next section I read was in Part 4, ‘SomePoints of Tension and Development’.

Part 4 – Some Points of Tension and DevelopmentThere are two chapters in this sectionfocusing on the training of teachers for workwith EBD students. They are: (1) ‘The GapBetween Research and Practice: AchievingEffective In-service Training for TeachersWorking with EBD students’ (Royer); and(2) ‘Do Teacher Training Courses PrepareUs for the Challenge of Students Experi-encing EBD’ (Blake). The author of theformer chapter is Canadian while the authorof the latter American – thus the direct rele-vance of the contents of these chapters is toa degree limited for UK readers. It will beuseful reading to those engaged in substan-tive EBD teacher training who are in a posi-tion to read the chapters from a comparative


Book Reviews

perspective, i.e. with an ongoing evaluationof how the contents illuminate teachertraining (initial teacher training and INSET)in the UK. The contents will also be ofinterest to ‘think tank’ members and ‘policymakers’ working at a level which has thepotential to influence government policies.

What of the remaining three chapters ofthis section of the book? Montague andCastro devotes a chapter to ‘AttentionDeficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Concerns andIssues’. This chapter starts with a neat,succinct description of the development ofthe terminology and diagnostic criteria sincethey were first included in the ‘Diagnosticand Statistical Manual of Mental disorders(DSM- II, 1968).

The authors then go on to examine issuesrelated to the theoretical perspectives andcurrent thinking about ADHD, definitionsand diagnostic criteria, assessment and identi-fication procedures and treatment interven-tion practices. The chapter also includes theposition of the National Association of SchoolPsychologists, namely ‘That instruction onbehavioural intervention should be tried outbefore medication is introduced into thetreatment plan’. This chapter was admirablyplaced in the section of the book devoted to‘Concerns and Issues’ and provided both ascholarly and relevant overview of the fieldand issues within the field.

The penultimate chapter of this part ofthe book is ‘How We Prevent the Preventionof Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties inEducation’. Having interpreted the title, I then went on to find the contents of thischapter to be interesting, relevant andcertainly addressing an ‘issue’. This chapterconstitutes an effective ‘briefing paper’ forpractitioners and policy makers engaged indrawing up proposals for early interventionpolicies and practices.

A further chapter of this section,‘Researching a Marginalized Population:Methodological Issues’, is contributed byLewis. It is the only chapter in this section ofthe book contributed to by a worker in a UKsetting. Lewis describes the chapter as being

about ‘how, as part of research methodologies, wemight go about assessing the views of marginalisedchild populations’. I would direct any studentengaged in research work with young peopleto read this chapter as part of their back-ground preparation.

Having read the chapters of the two partsof the Handbook of most personal interest, Iwent on to Part 1 (Concepts and Terminolo-gies) and Part 2 (Roots and Causes.

Part 1, Concepts and TerminologiesThis section contains six chapters. My atten-tion was first drawn to the sixth chapter of thesection, namely, ‘The forgotten ‘E’ in EBD’by Tony Bowers. Bowers outlines the termi-nological development in the area of EBDfrom the time of the Underwood’s report(1955) – and its reference to ‘maladjustedchildren’ - to the current situation in whichthe term ‘EBD’ is used. Bowers notes that theterm ‘social’ has been butted on along theway. Bowers makes the point that over the last50 years ‘Emotions have been given a back seatwhere formally identified special educational needsare concerned’. The reviewer would commendthis chapter to all practitioners in the field ofEBD – the contents constitute powerful elic-iting stimuli for ‘reflective practice’. Indeedthe chapter may be particularly pertinent foreducational psychologists in the context ofwhat their actual and potential contributionsshould be in this area of work.

Space does not allow for significantcomment on the remaining four chapters inthis section. A chapter by Kavale et el.,explores the definition of ‘Emotional andBehavioural Disorders in the USA situation’.Winzer’s chapter looks at critical issues withregard to international comparisons in EBD,while Ted Cole offers an historical perspectivewith regard to EBD. Although third ranked interms of the priority of sections to be read bythe reviewer, Part 1 was perhaps the most easyto read, coherent and complementary vis a visthe theme of the title of the section. It consti-tutes very relevant reading both fornewcomers to the field of EBD and for practi-tioners who perhaps, after some time, wish to


Book Reviews

place their personal beliefs, views, experi-ences and knowledge in the context of thefield of EBD as it has developed.

Part 2 – Routes and CausesThe first chapter in this section is concernedwith biology and behaviour – and the author,Cooper, considers the educational relevanceof the bio-psycho-social perspective. Cooperstarts the chapter with a description of exam-ples of different types of SEBD – followed bybrief accounts of the social, psychologicaland behavioural explanations of how thesedifficulties develop. Cooper concludes thatthe bio-psycho-social perspective can helpovercome the impulse to blame andcondemn but also observes that it must neverbe allowed to permit workers to escape fromresponsibility to put effort into overcomingSEBD. This is an appropriate conclusion tohis own chapter and an appropriate entréeto the following chapter by Furlong et al. onthe ‘Influences of the School Context andProcesses on Violent and Disruption inAmerican Schools’. The authors, following asummary of the status of school violence inAmerican schools, focus on the uniqueelements of the school context thatcontribute to, or detract from, the occur-rence of aggression and other anti-socialbehaviour. They conclude by outlining prin-ciples of prevention and intervention thatwill assist schools more effectively to reduceviolence and disruption on their campuses.With regard to the prevention of violenceand disruption the authors raise andrespond to the question ‘Focusing on thestudent or the context?’ The conclusion drawnis that the existence of a school wide disci-pline plan is a key strategy used in Americanschools for preventing behaviour problemsthat lead to student exclusion from school.Much the same conclusion could be drawnwith regard to the situation in the UK. Withregard to school violence and disruption –prevention principles – the authors high-light the important beginning step as ‘toconduct a needs assessment to accuratelyidentify the problems that exist in each

school’. Again a parallel with the UK situa-tion can be seen – such a needs assessmentbeing referred to the UK as a ‘BehaviourAudit’.The chapter by Furlong et al, whileinteresting, was not ‘new’ in terms of theconcepts, ideas and paradigms put forward.Parallels to most if not all of the ideas can beidentified within the UK system.

Chapter 9, ‘The Problem is not theProblem: Hard Cases in Modernist Systems’by O’Brien and Guiney, was difficult to readand its relevance hard to identify. I am of theopinion that at least some of the target audi-ence of the Handbook will have a difficultyaccessing this chapter.

In Nicholson’s chapter on ‘AcademicAchievement and Behaviour’ the conclusionis drawn ‘there does not have to be an actual auto-matic link between problem behaviours and under-achievement in school’. However, he goes on toassert, ‘children with behavioural problems arealmost certain to have reading and other academicproblems’ and argues that ‘their classroom focusshould be broader than just the prevention ofbehaviour problems’. In my opinion, with theadvent of the National Curriculum, undueemphasis has been placed on the narrowcurricular requirements of the NationalCurriculum when, in an EBD context, ofequal if not more importance is a well devel-oped and effectively delivered personal/social education (PSE) programme.

Concluding observationIt was with some relief that I found in thefirst chapter of this publication the editors’acknowledgement that some readers will feelthat the selection of chapters has been adhoc and what has been presented is ahaphazard assembly of research. The obser-vations of the editors mirror to a degree myfeelings about the cohesiveness of the book.Nonetheless the quality of most of the chap-ters is excellent, the referencing good andsome chapters are almost essential reading.

I concluded that this is a book that is auseful, but not essential, library acquisition.

Eddie McNamara, PhD, FBPS


Book Reviews

ReferencesBirmingham City Council (1998). Behaviour in

Schools: Framework for Intervention. Birmingham‘New Outlooks’ Study of Emotional and Behav-ioural Problems for Birmingham City CouncilEducation Department.

Galvin, P., Mercer, S. & Costa, P. (1990). Building abetter behaved school. London: Longman.

Prochaska, J.O. & DiClemente, C.C. (1984). TheTranstheoretical approach: Crossing the traditionalboundaries of therapy. Malabar, FL: Krieger.


Book Reviews

The following books are available for review. If you would like to review one of them, and/orif you would like to submit an Extended Review of a professionally significant book that youhave already read and consider merits such treatment, please contact the named persons onone of the following channels.

E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 01786 467211 (Direct Line & Answerphone) E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 028 9038 1271 (Switchboard)

Please provide your name, contact numbers/addresses and details of the book you would liketo review whether in the normal 700 to 800 words review, or in a lengthier extended ReviewPaper format. You will then be contacted.

Reviews Editors, The Psychology of Education Review (with effect from the publication of Vol. 29, No. 2).

LIST OF BOOKS FOR REVIEW.

Blakemore, S.J. & Frith, U. (2005). The learning brain; lessons for education. Oxford: Blackwell

Fish, L.S. & Harvey, R.G. (2005). Nurturing Queer Youth. Family Therapy Transformed. New York:W.W. Norton.

Grandstaff, D. (2004). Speaking as a Professional. Enhance your Therapy or Coaching Practice throughPresentations, Workshops and Seminars. New York: W.W. Norton.

Koshy, V. (2005). Action Research for Improving Practice. London: Sage.

Herbert, M. (2005). Developmental Problems of Childhood and Adolescence. Oxford: BPS/Blackwell.

Sambell, K., Miller, S. & Gibson, M. (2005). Studying Childhood and Early Childhood. A Guide forStudents. London: Sage.

Yelland, N. (Ed.) (2005). Critical Issues in Early Childhood Education. Maidenhead: OpenUniversity Press. McGraw-Hill Education.

N.B. If you have any suggestions concerning books that should be considered for reviewing inThe Psychology of Education Review, please contact the Reviews Editors.

Books for Review

Notes for contributorsThe Psychology of Education Review is published twice yearly (March/September). The aim is to publishmaterial in the area of Psychology and Education. Submissions in the following form are welcomed.

The Open Dialogue: This is a mechanism whereby there is simultaneous exchange of views on an issue ofsubstantial interest. It includes: An Initial Paper, outlining a distinctive position; Peer Review, in which peerscomment on the position; Author’s Reply, offering a final response. Anyone wishing to contribute shouldcontact and discuss preliminary ideas with the Editors.

Individual Papers: We welcome individual papers in any aspect of Psychology and Education. Papers shouldbe 2000 to 3000 words and may be of a theoretical or empirical nature. Individual papers are peer refereed.

Work in Progress: Graduate students, researchers and others are invited to describe, discuss and identifyareas of their current research in Psychology and Education. This section is divided into two sub-sections:

(1) peer refereed reports on on-going research by established researchers (750 to 2000 words); (2) reports on on-going research from research students (up to 1000 words).

Book Reviews: The Review aims to provide reviews of relevant books as soon as possible after theirpublication. Authors should alert the Book Reviews Editor if they wish to see a particular book reviewed –either of their own writing or if they feel it is relevant to our readers. Authors may be invited to respond toreviewed books. We are currently seeking to appoint a new Book Reviews Editor. In the meantime, direct allenquiries to Review Editor, Justine Howard. E-mail: [email protected]

In Brief: This includes: Information; Letters; News; Short Reports.

Submission of material Two copies should be typed and double-spaced for submission. Where possible a copy of the material on diskshould also be sent (in ASCII, TEXT or Microsoft Word 6.0). Please indicate format on the disk label.Submissions must follow BPS guidelines for journal submission and should state clearly within which sectionof the Review they are to be considered.

Annual subscriptionFree to members of the Education Section. £10 to non-members of the Education Section. £15 to Institutions.

Editorial addressIndividual Papers and Work in Progress submissions should be sent to:Justine Howard, Humanities and Social Science, University of Glamorgan, Pontypridd, CF37 1DL.Tel: 01443 482358; Fax: 01443 482138; E-mail: [email protected]

Printed in England by the British Psychological Society

St Andrews House, 48 Princess Road East, Leicester LE1 7DR, UKTel 0116 254 9568 Fax 0116 247 0787 E-mail [email protected] www.bps.org.uk

© The British Psychological Society 2005Incorporated by Royal Charter Registered Charity No 229642

Contents1 Editorial

Justine Howard & Ruth Kershner

2 Open Dialogue:Neuroscience and Education: The brain in the classroomUsha Goswami

Open Dialogue peer review:9 A response to Goswami – Laura Penrose11 A response to Goswami – Paul Howard-Jones13 A response to Goswami – Susan Hallam15 A response to Goswami – Fathima Khan17 A response to Goswami – David Whitebread

Open Dialogue:19 Author’s response to peer commentary

Usha Goswami

Individual Paper:21 The worries of junior high school pupils in Taiwan


29 A Note to the ReadersPeter D. Pumfrey

31 A response to a Book ReviewLeslie Smith

32 Book Reviews

64 Books for Review

The Psychology of Education Review Vol 29 No 2 Sept 05

Documents

Transcript of The Psychology of Education Review Vol 29 No 2 Sept 05