EVIDENCE-BASED DESIGN (Neuroscience and cognitive psychology)

—

RECEIVE A CALL TO DISCOVER MORE

^{“Without an understanding of human cognitive architecture, instruction is blind.”}

^{John Sweller}

^{Evidence based is a continuum, not a category.

Dylan Wiliam}
Are you curious for more? Would you like to get in touch? Feel free to contact our lead directly for any questions or inquiries you may have. tikvah@studioblended.com

Image: anatomic handdrawing of the brain.

As a course/training coordinator you likely have an authentic need to understand why a certain design technique works and does not work for teaching design, to be reassured you are doing ‘the right thing’.

It is actually quite common for teachers to search for ‘evidence-based’ practice beyond the hypes and trends or personalities and traditions. Indeed, ‘the idea that professional practices such as Education should at least be informed by evidence, continues to capture the imagination of many politicians, policy makers, practitioners and researchers (Biesta 2010, p. 491). Central to evidence-based practice is the idea of effective intervention (Biesta 2014, p. 393).

At StudioBlended, we are especially fascinated with how the brain learns best - and insights coming from neuroscience, and cognitive psychology. At the same time, we are critical about the suggestion that education should be turned into an evidence-based practice (and profession) and therefore focus most or all of its energy on generating knowledge on ‘what works’ based on experimental research (after Biesta 2007, 2010, 2014).

So, to which extent can we use insights from evidence-based research for education when we design curricula? Let us take you along some contrasts in research, and show where we believe the ‘hindsight’ is for practice and design. We first take you along a bit of a longer philosophical discussion, and then we end with: what then still makes sense? Can we use evidence-based insights?

Let’s first explore the paradigm of evidence-based practice, which as been around for quite some time now, and came to prominence in several countries around the world in the 2000s (see Biesta 2007). Kirschner, Hendrick and Heal (2025, p. 7) capture it well, when they write: ‘Few professions are implicated by the dissembling power of illusion more than education. After all, so much of what occurs when we learn is obscured to the outside observer, and often what we think we are seeing is distant or even diametrically opposed to what’s really happening (...) instructional illusions take many forms and can make certain approaches to learning appear more effective than they really are’. And they continue (2025, p. 15), stating ‘We instinctively associate action with performance, movement with mastery. Our pedagogical intuitions, shaped by cultural conditioning, lead us to conflate the appearance of learning with its actual occurrence. (...) we are neurologically predisposed to interpret what we see on the surface as the same as what’s happening underneath, even as the real mechanisms remain obscured from view’.

The way forward, write Kirschner, Hendrick and Heal (2025) is to unmask these educational illusions, and turn our attention for example to the structure of memory itself, and the way the brain learns. Such insights from cognitive psychology and even neuroscience, can inform our approach to effective curriculum design.

Yet, purely evidence-based design does not exist, and it is indeed in itself part of a paradigm hype cycle (see i.e. Biesta 2025, 2023). Prof. Gert Biesta, is hard to miss in the world of education, and is a emeritus professor of Public Education. Let’s look at some of his critiques over time.

Biesta writes (2025),‘to put it simply: an enormous amount of research that generates the alleged evidence-base for education constructs education itself as a black box. It looks at what goes ‘in’ on one end and what comes ‘out’ – for example in terms of measurable student achievement or attainment – at the other end and, based on this, suggests which ‘interventions’ (itself a notion that fits the image of the black box well) are most likely to generate or produce particular ‘outcomes’.

As Biesta (2025) writes: ‘The idea that education should be or become an evidence-based profession has been around for several decades and is still gaining in popularity in many countries around the world. The idea of evidence-based practice emerged in the field of medicine as a way to understand what clinical judgment actually is and what the resources for such judgments are or ought to be.‘ But, he continues ‘this logic has been transplanted to the domain of education, without asking whether the way in which education ‘works’ in any meaningful way resembles the way in which medicinal drugs interact with physical bodies and their chemistry. The answer to this question is of course ‘no.’ Being a student is not a disease, teaching is not a drug, and education is not a cure.’

‘The practice of education is an entirely different one where different things are at stake – our ambition is to educate students so that they can lead their own personal and professional lives in meaningful, responsible and thoughtful ways – and where the ‘logic of operation’ is not one of interventions upon objects but of communication between subjects.’ (Biesta 2025, see also Biesta 2023). Students are not stimulus-response machines that need to get the right trigger in order to produce the right outcome. Students are thoughtful human beings, albeit human beings on a journey towards more, better and deeper thoughtfulness, who will respond to what teachers present reflectively rather than reactively. And for this to happen, teachers employ the tools of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment judiciously and creatively, always with the ambition to reach the student, to touch the student and, through this, encourage students towards (...) thoughtful and responsible self-activity.’

There is an assumption that experimental tests, with randomized control trial, reflect what is ‘true’ in the world, and give us true knowledge - but in reality they can only give us possibilities, never certainties (see Biesta 2010). Experimentation is always an intervention in the real world - and thus a distortion, we must give up the idea that it is possible to achieve complete knowledge about reality (Biesta 2010, p. 495). Also, the simplistic idea is to assume that interventions are causes and effects and that, under optimal conditions, the causes will necessarily generate the effects. But most processes in the social domain operate as open systems (Biesta 2010, p 495). The elements that make up the system, human beings, have the capacity to think, which means they can alter their behaviour on the basis of their interpretations and understandings (Biesta 2010, p 496).

‘Evidence-based practice, assumes that the ends of professional action are a given, and that the only relevant (professional and research) questions to be asked are about the most effective and efficient ways of achieving that ends’ (Biesta 2014, p. 393). This model that evidence-based practice uses for education, is not appropriate. ‘What is needed for education is a model for professional action which is able to acknolwedge the non-causal nature of educational interaction, and the fact that the means and ends of education are internally rather than externally related’ (Biesta 2014, p. 394, and 2007, p.10). For example: ‘We should not think of these interventions as causes, but as opportunities for students to respond and, through their response, to learn something from these opportunities’ (see Burton and Chapman 2004, pp. 60–61; Biesta 2001b in Biesta 2014, p. 393).

‘What is needed, in other words, is an acknowledgement of the fact that education is a moral practice, rather than a technical or technological one - a distinction which goes back to Aristotle’s distinction between phronesis (practical wisdom) and techne (instrumental knowledge) (see Aristotle 1980 particularly book VI, and Biesta 2009 in Biesta 2014, p. 393).

What does this mean? ‘The most important question for educational professionals is not about the effectiveness of their actions, but about the potential educational value of what they do, i.e. about the educational desireability of the opportunities for learning that follow from their actions’ (Biesta 2014, p. 394). ‘This is why’ argues Biesta (2014, p. 394), ‘the “what works” agenda of evidence-based practice is at least insufficient and probably misplaced in the case of education, because judgement in education is not simply about what is possible, but about what is educationally desireable (a value judgement).

We must remain critical. Biesta (2007) concludes that evidence-based practice provides a framework for understanding the role of research in educational practice that not only restricts the scope of decision making to questions about effectivity and effectiveness, but that also restricts the opportunities for participation in educational decision making. He argues that we must expand our views about the interrelations among research, policy, and practice to keep in view education as a thoroughly moral and political practice that requires continuous democratic contestation and deliberation.

Biesta (2010, p. 500) writes that questions on ‘what works’ are always secondary to questions of purpose. ‘It is only when we have provided an answer to what we hope achieve that we can begin to ask questions about the ways in which we might be able to achieve such outcomes—bearing in mind all the limitations discussed. Given that evidence can at most provide us with information about possible connections between actions and consequences and therefore is entirely located at the level of the means of education, the idea of evidence-based practice is problematic, because if evidence were the only base for educational practice, educational practice would be entirely without direction. This is one reason why, in education, values come first (see also Ax and Ponte 2010 in Biesta 2010, p. 500). (...) ‘It is, therefore, only in light of decisions about the aims and ends of educational practices that questions about evidence and effectiveness begin to have any meaning at all. There is, after all, no evidence to generate or collect if we do not first decide about what the aim or purpose of the practice is. (Biesta 2010, p. 501).’

So, what then can we still use from the field of evidence-based research in Education?

Biesta (2014, p. 396) refers back to Dewey (1938, p. 490) to suggest we don’t have to ‘object to a technological view of professional action, as long as we don’t expect too much, or the wrong thing from research, and as long as we keep in mind that the professional judgement is always about situations that in some respect are unique.’

Educational practitioners have the right not to act according to evidence about ‘what works’ if they judge that such a line of action would be educationally undesirable (after Biesta 2014, 398). ‘Research, in short, can tell us what worked, but cannot tell us what works [in a new given setting here today].‘ (Biesta 2014, p. 396). Research should ‘not limit the opportunities for educational professionals to exert their judgement about what is eductionally desireable in particular situations’ (Biesta 2014, p. 398).

The field of curriculum design is indeed rich, and covers a broad spectrum of disciplines that allows for many angles and debates. Teaching is an art which builds on the experience and practice of generations of teachers, world-class philosophers, and pedagogues before you. This is called ‘tacit professional knowledge’ (see Van Damme).

Dewey (1938 in Biesta 2014, p. 396) ‘shows us that ‘evidence’ does not provide us with the rules for action, but only with hypotheses for intelligent problem solving.’ In other words we can use it as an instrument in intelligent professional action. What is more, we must always keep our focus of systematic inquiry on the desireability of educational ends. ‘A democratic society is precisely one in which the purpose of education is not given but is a constant topic for discussion and deliberation’ (Biesta 2014, p. 397, using also the work of de Vries 1990). ‘The fact that the whole discussion about evidence-based practice only seems to have technical expectations about the practical role of research, is therefore also a worrying sign from the point of view of democracy (Biesta 2014, p. 398).‘

Let’s also briefly touch upon the knowledge domain of a curriculum, and how brain-based approaches are (mis)used.

We have recently seen a call for for a revival of the so-called ‘knowledge domain’ of education (see i.e. Surma et al. 2025). These voices, often come as a reaction to what has been claimed to be the failure of the so-called ‘constructivist’ model, in other words what these researchers and practitioners will call seemingly ‘progressive’ education that is ‘student centered’ and sees the teacher as merely a guide (see i.e. Surma et al. 2025, Kirschner, Sweller & Clark 2006).

In this model education is about transmitting knowledge across generations. To be educated in this ‘knowledge domain’ model, means knowing the facts, and having the skills (after Wegerif 2025, p.1-13). Even so, theorists as early as at least Dewey (1916), have been critical of the so-called transmission model of education, this default theory, which is claimed to be the ‘common sense model’ of direct teaching. Biesta, in his work, emphasises that education is not only about transferring knowledge (qualification), but also about conveying social norms and values (socialisation) and learning to become a critical thinker (subjectification).

Superficially, writes Wegerif (2025), theories and practice on how the brain learns most effectively, might sound like an account of internalisation of the larger culture and knowledge domain. The facts move into an imagined internal storage, the long term memory. Or, in Wegerif words (2025, p. 18): ‘The story that facts found first outside of students in books move inside their brains, perhaps stored in neuronal assemblies of some kind and are then expressed outside again on an exam page’. But this, argues Wegerif (2025, p. 18) ‘ignores the transformation of facts by consciousness and identity’.

Building on Freire (1970), Wegerif (2025, p. 18) argues, ‘the growth in education is not the storing of facts as one may store money in a bank, but a process of transformation whereby that which is originally encountered as external becomes internal and available for use in creative thoughts and actions that can change the world’. Dialogue is not about getting the learner to see things the way you do, but to both transform through the act of the dialogue.

Surely, there is a reason why knowledge-based domain comes back into the attention. What truth is in there?

As always, it is smart to look for the ‘hindsight’ in the paradigm shift of evidence based design and practice. The question to us is: what would be the best of two worlds, what are the robust essentials of evidence-based design such as understanding how the brain learns (and knowledge-based design) that can amplify pedagogy with sound hypotheses?

There seems a heated debate in literature and between certain experts yes, but in practice we must realise, these extremes are not that polarised. The school of evidence based, may come across too angry and state things about practice that in reality don’t happen in that extreme way in the classroom. The school of thought that questions evidence based design, may throw away too many valuable insights, and be overly philosophical. Both schools have good insights (Verkoeijen 2025).

A hindsight is perhaps to not throw away the baby with the bathwater.

As a course / degree coordinator (and lecturer) you can actually choose, what elements you find rich in potential for your practice. Evidence about how the brain learns optimally, in an experimental setting, can actually help you structure your thinking and your design and practice.

Just remember this: ‘we are always already in the middle of education, and need to make the best of it - which is precisely why we need artistry as educators, not recipes or prescriptions, irrespective of whether they are evidence-based or not’ (Biesta 2022, p. 12). We need a view for the present. ‘Education has an inherent and undeniable urgency’ (Biesta 2022, p. 11).

We synthesise all this for you. How are we different from other educational advisors? We are dedicated to reaching conclusions: what does all this mean for you in your actual course/training design, what works now, in this setting? How can you innovate with pedagogy from within the content of your knowledge domain.

We lead a co-creation with you, to reach a bespoke approach for your unique setting and course/degree. You may also want to check out our Audio Podcast, where we equip you with relevant brain based approaches for your curriculum design, they help to both structure your thinking, and your practice. Prefer to have a call? Feel free to contact us directly.

Join related studies / Our Audio Podcast

Prefer to read? Looking for resources? Transcript
Listen on: Acast Spotify Apple
Release Sept 23 ‘22, episode 1 StudiOpedia

In this podcast episode we delve into the actual practice of curriculum design:

1) The start of every sound teacher training: unlearn to go by intuition and emotion. Ensure a robust fundament with technique and pedagogy.
2) What curriculum is, and what learning design is.
3) Become aware of this fascinating organ, the brain – how does it learn best, how does it remember, how are lasting memories and deep understanding created – by design?
4) Get into a new routine, and skill yourself to design well.

Related publications

Ausubel, D.P. (1968) Educational psychology: a cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Biesta, Gert (2025). ‘Opening the black box of evidence, urgently’. Blog post. British Educational Research Association (BERA), September 10. Available: https://www.bera.ac.uk/blog/opening-the-black-box-of-evidence-urgently (Accessed: October 27, 2025).

Biesta, G. (2023) ‘Outline of a theory of teaching: What teaching is, what it is for, how it works, and why it requires artistry’ in A.K. Praetorius & C. Y. Charalambous (Eds.), Theorizing teaching: Current status and open issues, Springer, pp. 253–280.

Biesta, G. (2022) World-Centered Education; A view for the present. New York and London: Routledge.

Biesta, G. (2014) ‘Evidence Based Practice in Education: Between Science and Democracy’ in: Reid, A., Hart, E. and Peters, M. (eds) A Companion to Research in Education. Dordrecht: Springer. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6809-3_52 (Accessed: October 27, 2025).

Biesta, G. (2010). ‘Why what works, still won’t work: From evidence-based education to value based education’. Stud Philos Educ (2010) 29, pp. 491–503 Available: DOI 10.1007/s11217-010-9191-x

Biesta, G. (2007). ‘Why What works won’t work: Evidence-based Practice and the Democratic Deficit in Educational Research’. Educational Theory v57, Feb, n1 pp 1-22.

Damme, D. (no date) ‘The Challenges of Evidence-Informed Education’, PowerPoint. Boston: Center for Curriculum Design. Available: https://dirkvandammeedu.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/The-Challenges-of-Evidence-informed-Education-CEIPP.pdf (Accessed: October 27, 2025).

Hattie, J. and Yates, G.C.R (2014). Visible learning and the science of how we learn. New York: Routledge.

Mc Tighe, J. and Willis, J. (2019) Upgrade your teaching: understanding by design meets neuroscience. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).

Mc Tighe, J. and Wiggins, G. (2004) Understanding by Design: Professional Development Workbook. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).

Kirschner, P.A., Hendrick, C. and Heal, J. (2025). Instructional illusions. Hachette Learning: London.

Kirschner, P.A. Sweller, J., Clarck, R.E., (2006), ‘Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching’. Educational Psychologist Vol 41, pp. 75-86. DOI:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1

Kirschner, P.A. and Hendrick, C. (2020) How Learning Happens: Seminal Works in Educational Psychology and What They Mean in Practice. London and New York: Routledge.

Peeters, W., Lucassen, M., Geurts, R. and Wevers, I. (2021). Curriculumontwerp in een notendop [Curriculum design in a nutshell]. Helmond: Uitgeverij OMJS [Onderwijs maak je samen. Vernieuwenderwijs] [Dutch]

Roediger, H. and Butler, A. (2011) ‘Paradoxes of learning and memory.’ The Paradoxical Brain. pp. 151-176. 10.1017/CBO9780511978098.010.

Surma, T., Vanhees, Cl. Wils, M., Nijlunsing, J., Crato, N., Hattie, J., Muijs, D., Rata, E., William, D., Kirschner, P.A. (2025). Developing curriculum for deep thinking, the knowledge revival. Springer. Open access.

Verkoeien, P. (2025). ‘Flexibility, motivation and learning: Opportunities and Challenges’. CLI Lunch & Learn, Erasmus University, 9 October.

Wegerif, R. (2025) Rethinking Education Theory; Education as Expanding Dialogue. Chantelham, Northhampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Weinstein, Y., Sumeracki, M. and Caviglioli, O. (2019). Understanding how we learn: a visual guide. London and Newyork: Routledge.

More design angles we use

Technical resilience
Big ideas
Paradigm shifts/decade strong
Simplicity and decluttering
Human resilience
Modular
Innovative and deep pedagogy
Assesment / evaluation
Time dimension
Evidence-based design
Financial health and resilience by (re)design
Multi- Inter- and transdisciplinary
Flexibilisation and personalisation
Blended

RECEIVE A TAILOR-MADE QUOTATION

Curios? Feel free to contact our senior advisor and teacher trainer directly:
tikvah@studioblended.com +31 6 42 47 29 69

Resilient education that stands the test of time - by design.

EVIDENCE-BASED DESIGN (Neuroscience and cognitive psychology)

Join related studies / Our Audio Podcast

Related publications

More design angles we use

︎︎︎