# data[].attributes.headline
University of Chester – School of Education Cognitive Science (CCF) & Learning Sciences: Glossary of Key Terms     

# data[].attributes.subject
University of Chester – School of Education Cognitive Science (CCF) & Learning Sciences: Glossary of Key Terms     

# data[].attributes.body
https://outlooklivechesterac-my.sharepoint.com/:w:/g/personal/g_baillie_chester_ac_uk/EfbnoQi32KdIsQqxWeE_Zk8BfVHYKpbGy9kXhutfMl5hTQ?e=pu2EDD&CID=d07f0583-acd6-d996-75e0-6a8908cb7740

# data[].attributes.headline
Developing a balanced critique of cognitive load theory: the case for the importance of teaching critical thinking

# data[].attributes.subject
Developing a balanced critique of cognitive load theory: the case for the importance of teaching critical thinking

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1871187121001905

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

How critical thinking is understood has a logical impact on pedagogy and curriculum design in a critical thinking education. If critical thinking is seen as a complex mix of knowledge, skills and dispositions that can be articulated and made an object of study in themselves, then there is scope for intentional and explicit targeting of such things. If, however, critical thinking is seen as a general skill more or less impermeable to pedagogical influence and best realised through the development of content knowledge, then an explicit focus on developing thinking skills is misplaced and potentially distracting. The latter view is that of (CLT), a theoretical framing of thinking and learning that has gained traction in education including with practitioners. This paper will explore some of the assumptions of CLT and show that they are either (1) in error, (2) vaguely or confusingly expressed and/or (3) the conclusions drawn within the theory are often errors of inference. Moreover, I point out that important cognitive load theory educational research that weakens the claims of CLT is often not engaged with or addressed.

Introduction

There are conflicting views about what critical thinking is. Some see it as a mix of skills and dispositions that can be developed in a variety of contexts (Siegel, Kuhn, Bayer, Lipman). Others see it as a general (innate) skill relatively immune to pedagogical influence (Sweller, Willingham). Each of these views contains assumptions that generate a variety of pedagogical approaches. Despite this incoherence, the importance of critical thinking to innovation, employability, participatory democracy and countering widespread misinformation is widely accepted, and so the means in which it is developed and the educational environments that are constructed to do this are a cause of immediate and significant concern.

Perhaps the most significant schism that exists between these views concerns the relationship of critical thinking to content knowledge. Two broad approaches are discernible. One offers that critical thinking can be developed independently or perhaps alongside of content knowledge, suggesting that there is a range of thinking skills that are themselves proper objects of study and can be meaningfully targeted for development in the classroom. Another offers that critical thinking is only meaningful in discipline area contexts, and that deep content knowledge is prerequisite to activating students' critical thinking capabilities. An example of the former is the teaching of philosophy to (mostly) primary school students through a variety of 'Philosophy for/with Children' (PC) programs that are well developed worldwide, including a substantial and historic movement in Australia (Burgh & Thornton, 2016). Based on the work of Matthew Lipman and Anne Sharp and rooted in the pragmatic philosophy of John Dewey, this movement focuses on the development of thinking skills, including those of argument analysis, construction and evaluation in the contexts of collaborative philosophical inquiry. An example of the latter are programs based on Cognitive Load Theory (CLT), developed by the educational psychologist John Sweller and echoed in educational contexts by theorisers and researchers such as Daniel Willingham. CLT sees thinking skills as an emergent property of content knowledge development and an explicit focus on teaching them as misguided and indeed unhelpful since it distracts students from the key business of content knowledge acquisition. PC programs have a strong research base indicating their effectiveness in a range of outcomes in terms of student cognitive gains. CLT theorists point to experimental evidence against the effectiveness of explicit teaching for thinking and propose arguments as to why it is pedagogically unsound. These two examples far from exhaust critical thinking approaches, but they serve as a useful contrast.

The purpose of this paper is to critically analyze claims that critical thinking cannot be explicitly taught, including claims from CLT. This analysis will concern both the understanding of critical thinking and the teaching of it.

One of the core claims of CLT is that our working memory-memory available for the short-term storage and manipulation of information not yet committed to long term memory-is very limited and should be carefully marshaled for use in learning. Overloading students' working memory by using poorly designed instructional techniques unnecessarily complicates learning and makes it less effective. While it is understood that there is an inevitable cognitive load intrinsic to learning a task or concept (the so-called germane load when it includes the development of understanding apart from simple recall), any additional load imposed by means of instruction (the extrinsic load) should be minimised. ¹ For example, it is claimed that providing worked examples minimises the extrinsic cognitive load on students and allows them to better engage with the problem and its content, proving to be more effective in terms of learning outcomes than students developing these approaches themselves through an inquiry process (Schwonke et al., 2009).

In addition to minimizing extrinsic cognitive load, it is essential, according to CLT theorists, that students can integrate their knowledge into a functional understanding of the conceptual underpinnings of their subject areas. Rather than simply memorizing facts or copying procedures, students should develop a schematic representation of their subject areas that can be called upon to solve more complex problems. Knowledge which is highly and effectively integrated-schematic knowledge-is definitional of expertise across many domains; it is what allows experts to operate so quickly and accurately, partly because knowledge that is schematically organised places a much smaller demand on working memory than unintegrated knowledge allowing for more effective problem-solving. Worked examples that can minimize cognitive load seem more effective at developing schematic understanding in students, particularly in the early stages of concept development, and are hence a desirable means of optimizing student learning.

Consequent to this, at the core of CLT are some key propositions:

P1

Working memory should be optimised during learning (minimised extrinsic load)

P2

"Explicit guidance and feedback from teachers is more effective in teaching students new content and skills ² than letting them discover these for themselves" (due to, among other things, the reduction in extrinsic memory requirements) (Sweller, 2019)

P3

Inquiry "should only be used when we cannot obtain needed information from others" (following on from P1 and P2) ( ibid)

P4

"...to think deeply, we need lots of knowledge stored [schematically] in long-term memory" ( ibid)

These propositions might seem, prima facie, sensible to some, but more on this later. Consider now another proposition that Sweller claims is intrinsic to CLT:

P5

There are two types of knowledge, "biologically primary knowledge", or knowledge we can acquire automatically (such as speaking a language) and "biologically secondary knowledge" which we must explicitly teach (most things we are taught at school), "...critical thinking is biologically primary and so unteachable." ( ibid)

Leaving aside how realistic the distinction between biologically primary and secondary knowledge might be for the moment, it remains unclear why critical thinking is placed in the primary category. It seems a significant point to omit, for there seems nothing in P1-4 to rule out critical thinking being teachable.

Before I address this and other problems, it is worth considering a view within cognitive psychology that resonates with CLT, though this resonance is by no means a universal phenomenon in psychology. ³ One prominent and influential voice is that of psychologist Daniel Willingham, who claims that critical thinking is both only achievable through deep discipline knowledge and non-transferable (Willingham, 2020). Willingham and cognitive load theorists seem to agree that critical thinking is an emergent property actualised by problem solving within a discipline context using schematically organised deep discipline knowledge. In this view, since critical thinking is so intimately associated with context, and hence so reliant on deep knowledge of that context, it is difficult to conceptualize it as a transferable skill. In support of this statement, Willingham notes several experimental cases in which students have been taught a variety of skills ranging from chess to computer coding that do not seem to have produced any benefits in other areas.

From this we have two final propositions to add to the list above, completing, for the purposes of this paper at least, a summary of key ideas that have significant current educational traction, including in the Australian context. ⁴

P6

Critical thinking can only be actualised through deep content knowledge

P7

Critical thinking is not a transferable skill.

Section snippets

What Cognitive Load Theory gets wrong

There are at least four significant problems with the proposition set above. I will address these as follows.

Conclusion

An argument that the effectiveness of thinking can be improved by content knowledge is no argument that critical thinking cannot be taught. And it is certainly no argument that critical thinking is best promoted by a sole focus on developing content knowledge with no attention given to quality of reasoning. The vagueness within CLT of what critical thinking is, along with a misunderstanding of the distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions, the conflation of terms such as critical

Author statement
This article has benefited from collaborative discussions with Professor Deborah Brown, University of Queensland, Professor Calvin Normore, University of California, Los Angeles and Dr Claudio Mazzola, University of Queensland.

The Four Dimensions of an Intellectual Virtue

In Moral and Intellectual Virtues in Western and Chinese Philosophy

Dewey, J. (1966), Democracy and Education, New York: Free...

On critical thinking and collaborative inquiry

10 Things schools get wrong (And how we can get them right)

The problem with teaching 21st century skills (10 things schools get wrong: Book launch webinar #2)

View full text

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
On critical thinking and content knowledge: A critique of the assumptions of cognitive load theory

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How critical thinking is understood has a logical impact on pedagogy and curriculum design in a critical thinking education. If critical thinking is s...

# data[].attributes.headline
Research methods - all of them, understanding statistics (significance, correlation, causation etc), meta analysis and how to interpret them, criticality (we need a shared understanding of what this is, for marking purposes)

# data[].attributes.subject
Research methods - all of them, understanding statistics (significance, correlation, causation etc), meta analysis and how to interpret them, criticality (we need a shared understanding of what this is, for marking purposes)

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.tes.com/magazine/teaching-learning/general/cognitive-science-load-trouble

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For an increasing number of teachers, understanding cognitive science research and applying methods informed by that research in the classroom has become an integral part of their practice.

Methods driven by thinking about how people learn and thus how they can be helped to learn - spaced learning, interleaving, retrieval practice, managing cognitive load, dual coding using verbal and non-verbal information - are now common in many schools.

In fact, in a recent Teacher Tapp survey, as many as 92 per cent of respondents had heard of working memory and long-term memory, 81 per cent had heard of cognitive load theory and 79 per cent had heard of retrieval practice.

And in a separate survey of teachers conducted by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF), more than 85 per cent of respondents said that cognitive science strategies were central to their own approach to teaching.

"There's been a large increase in interest in cognitive science; there's been a large increase in the amount of practice that is informed or inspired by it," says Thomas Perry, assistant professor in the University of Warwick's Department of Education Studies. "Crucially, I think, a critical mass was reached about a year or two ago, where these things started to find their way into policy frameworks."

Indeed, it's not just teachers who have become devotees of the "cogsci" creed, but politicians, too. One notable example of this is the overview of research evidence behind the Ofsted inspection framework published in 2019, which said it was "important that we use approaches that help pupils to integrate new knowledge into the long-term memory", adding that the "learning sciences" were "increasingly generating moderate to strong evidence of practices that can be used to enhance learning across phases and remits".

Concerns over cognitive science in the classroom

Meanwhile, from this month, early career teachers will be given two years of training under the new Early Career Framework - supported and funded by the Department for Education - in which they will be taught about memory and how to avoid overloading working memory (essentially cognitive load theory).

It is therefore safe to say that cognitive science-informed approaches are now well established. But should they be?

An evidence review published recently by the EEF, a review led by Perry, raises some fundamental questions about the evidence base for applying those very approaches in the classroom.

What do those questions mean for how teachers teach? Could the EEF evidence review signal, perhaps, the end of the rise - or the end of the first era, at least - of cognitive science in the classroom?

In order to understand where cognitive science-based methods are going, it is useful to understand how they took off in the first place.

Harry Fletcher-Wood is an associate dean at training provider Ambition Institute, whose modules cover putting cognitive science research into classroom practice. He sees social media as an essential factor here.

"It felt like there was a vanguard - five, six, seven, eight years ago - which was Twitter led: people reading predominantly American research, particularly [the work of psychologist] Daniel Willingham, and advocating for that, then moving out through the ResearchEd conference and blogs and books," he says.

"That has spread so it's become a lot more mainstream ... now lots and lots of school leaders have come across the same ideas."

So, rather than official agencies setting the path on cognitive science methods, bodies like Ofsted have been "following the teachers" and the spread of these ideas on social media, points out Mark Enser, who is head of geography and research lead at Heathfield Community College in East Sussex, and a regular writer for Tes. This, he says, is a key reason why the ideas have taken off: the movement is peer led, so comes with the validation of being tried and tested by teachers.

Enser argues that another reason why these ideas have spread so quickly is that the results of the techniques can be "very immediate ... you can see it working". "You do some retrieval quizzes and the next lesson, [pupils] can remember more than they would have been able to," he says.

This has been a refreshing change, Enser explains. So much educational research is "fascinating" but "esoteric ... it doesn't help me as a teacher to do my job in the classroom on a day-to-day basis - and this does," he says.

Indeed, the basic principles underpinning much of the cognitive science research centre on a simple argument that most teachers can get behind: that working memory is limited, so there is a need not to overload pupils and to regularly revisit new information to check what they recall and to fill the holes in that recollection. In other words: forgetting is natural, and here are some ways around it that teachers can deploy. Whether some teachers needed cognitive science to tell them that, or they knew it already, is perhaps a moot point: the validation of academic research is surely welcome validation.

But have some important caveats around the original research been jettisoned in its rapid, somewhat freewheeling popularisation in teaching?

That's what the EEF evidence review aimed to look at. And it was a serious piece of work, assessing a final database of 499 studies testing the application of cognitive science-informed approaches. Importantly, the review developed a tool to assess the studies' "ecological validity" : whether a study was delivered by teachers in realistic, everyday classroom conditions, as distinct from scripted lessons, lessons delivered by researchers or classes that centred on "recreational games" or psychometric assessments rather than typical learning outcomes.

The main review team comprised researchers from the University of Birmingham (where Perry worked at the time), supported by an advisory panel of leading education scholars, cognitive psychologists and neuroscientists.

The evidence base this team reviewed was broad. Perry observes that "a lot of what we call cognitive science has come from basic science", where there has been "a really strong evidence base built up over many decades, but a lot of it comes from laboratory studies, a lot of it comes from things that are fairly artificial, a lot of it comes from undergraduate students".

When it comes to the application of cognitive science-informed approaches to teaching the curriculum, "a lot of the work on that front has been done essentially by very expert and creative teachers writing books", he points out, so it was important to assess what evidence there was on the applied research.

The review emphasises that talk of "cognitive science" covers two distinct arms: cognitive psychology, concerned with mental processes; and cognitive neuroscience, concerned with the brain and the biological processes that underlie cognition.

In terms of headline messages for teachers from the review, Perry says that there are two.

"The first one is that we think cognitive science matters: we think teachers should know about it, it's absolutely right that this is informing the Early Career Framework and so on, and teachers should have a working knowledge of the principles of cognitive science," he says. It is "quite clear that the cognitive science principles are generally a good explanation for changes in learning, rates of learning - people are testing these, they are having the expected effects," he adds.

However, the second, "slightly contradictory but also true message here is that the applied evidence base is far more limited than the basic science", continues Perry. "It tends to be more complex, tends to be less positive."

What this essentially means is that the ideas are theoretically plausible - in controlled conditions, there is evidence of validity. Where the review finds issues is that we don't know how far these ideas prove true in the real world of teaching in a classroom.

On the matter of ecological validity, for instance, he points out that "even a lot of the studies that were in the classroom" were "teacher proofed" - scripted and delivered by researchers or computer programmes. And, he adds, there are "gaps in relation to which subjects have been studied" in the applied research, with "upper primary, lower secondary maths and science in particular ... overrepresented in the evidence base".

This bias towards certain subjects in the research is worth noting, because if the strength of cognitive science-led approaches appears to be in learning concrete facts, where might that leave a subject like English, in which interpretation and nuance are at the heart of things? And what about the early years? Many teachers of this stage prioritise "immersive learning environments". What effect would a seemingly contrary approach of managing cognitive load have on the youngest children?

For Perry, these are examples of areas "where we have actually quite little applied evidence" and where "we should take care about universalising, generalising these principles".

On the one hand, it's positive that more teachers are reading educational research and spreading its key findings to a wider audience through social media. Looked at in another light, that decentralised dissemination of information could lead to classroom application that is unhelpfully detached from the original research.

The EEF review terms this the risk of "lethal mutations", noting, for example, that some teachers "have reported that [the theory of] dual coding sometimes means that irrelevant illustrations are added to presentations, which may be a distraction rather than a way of developing schemas and optimising cognitive load".

Megan Dixon, director of research at Holy Family Catholic Multi-Academy Trust and a Tes research columnist, agrees that teaching and learning can suffer as a result of such mutations. But she also sees another worrying trend connected to the adoption of supposed cognitive science approaches: an ideological shift about how we see the broader process of teaching and learning. This is the tendency "to believe that the students are empty vessels that need to be poured with knowledge to pass a test".

Indeed, cognitive science-informed approaches can seem rather cold, viewing children as purely rational entities who will uniformly respond in the required way if the teacher applies their methods correctly - arguably failing to take account of differences in children's development, of special educational needs and of the impact of things like hunger or lack of sleep on an individual's capacity to learn.

Perry agrees that there's definitely a deficiency in this area in "the account of cognitive science we have at the moment ... when we read the practice-facing guidance and the Early Career Framework and so forth", in that "it's a model of individuals and information". Interestingly, that absence is not down to a gap in the research, says Perry, but a blind spot in the consumption of it.

The EEF review team included cognitive neuroscientists and cognitive psychologists, and Perry says that "what you see when you look at the wider literature is that there is a cognitive neuroscience and cognitive psychology of, essentially, relationships and emotions".

There are "half a dozen studies" on the effect of anxiety on cognitive load, he continues, but "you don't go into the Early Career Framework and see a little bit on anxiety and how teachers can build relationships and settle kids' nerves ... It's in the cognitive science, it's just not in the account of it."

So what does this mean for how we train teachers to apply these methods? Fletcher-Wood, as someone who designs training programmes, stresses that we should never assume that we can adopt any educational research wholesale.

"Any time you think any single thing is going to solve all your problems, you've created a new problem for yourself," he says, adding that the EEF review offers "worthy caution" in this area.

But at the same time, as a history teacher, he notes that educational research is not exactly flush with randomised controlled trials in his subject.

"The idea that I can wait for anyone to do randomised controlled trials in history - I could be waiting 20 years. There comes a point when you have to make an educated, informed decision about what to do based on the evidence. You have to extrapolate from what there is," he says.

"If we know about how people learn, if we know that in 150 lab experiments people always forget things, it's a bold move to say that's something we shouldn't teach teachers about, and it's a bold move to say that's not really important and is not going to apply to my kids because I'm teaching French, not maths or whatever."

Where do we go from here, then? Is better training that will help teachers to understand the evidence base in more detail the way forward? Or might we have reached the end of a phase of explosive expansion in cognitive science-informed approaches, with the EEF review heralding a new era of scepticism?

Dixon argues that it is "fundamentally unethical to ignore the limitations" of the research, calling for "a national conversation around ecological validity and around the application of some of these ideas".

Enser concludes that the EEF review feels like a warning to school leaders to "not dismiss cognitive science - to understand it and look at it in detail - but not simply to impose it". Cognitive science approaches cannot function as "abstract theory - just telling people this is the thing you should do", he argues, but instead must be supported by reflection and training and observation by leaders, through a "cycle of theory and practice".

Having these conversations and reflecting on the application of the methods in detail is bound to take time.

However, one area in which the EEF review might have an immediate impact is in the Early Career Framework, which the EEF has been involved in developing. According to EEF research and policy manager Harry Madgwick, who supported the review summary, some of the "nuances" highlighted in the evidence review are "already making their way into the development of the materials".

"The full induction programmes that are being developed at the moment - I'm aware that some of them have already integrated some of the findings from the review," he says.

Meanwhile, Becky Francis, EEF chief executive, says that the review serves as a timely reminder that "applying the findings from educational research in classrooms is a challenge. However, it's one that teachers know to be worth tackling in order to maximise the impact of their practice and, in turn, accelerate pupil progress".

Perry adds that because we now know where further research is needed in this area, we can direct resources towards filling the gaps.

"Subject specificity has been sorely lacking from any of the basic science ... It would be really nice if the EEF, for example, funded some trials looking at what it looks like in geography, what it looks like in primary - and actually try to fill some of those gaps in the applied evidence base," he says.

And when it comes to training for teachers, the review's findings of classroom studies suggest that "doing this at scale, in really realistic conditions, is under-problematised", explains Perry, highlighting that the EEF's CPD review is due to report in October.

"Even if you support the [cognitive science] principles ... there's still quite a lot we need to know about what a good CPD programme looks like," he points out.

More broadly, Dixon thinks the issues around cognitive science research highlight how "schools have been encouraged to use research and evidence [more generally] without a wider conversation about how they should approach this".

"It is important that we are thinking carefully and systematically about what the research tells us, what it doesn't and what we don't know," she explains.

The concept of ecological validity is "not widely understood" in schools, says Dixon, but the EEF review "highlights the importance of this concept and [of] recognising the limitations and possible risks that might be involved in the large, wholesale adoption of practices that have only been evaluated in small samples in some age groups".

Where we go next may therefore depend on what teachers learn about this research from increasingly putting it into practice in real classroom situations in their own school contexts.

As we enter the new academic year, the EEF review may have the effect of putting the brakes on the use of cognitive science-informed approaches somewhat. However, just as the initial popularisation of the methods began with teachers, it is now ultimately up to teachers to decide whether to bring the cognitive science vehicle completely to a halt or to switch gears and take it forwards into a new phase of more cautious progress.
John Morgan is a freelance journalist This article originally appeared in the 3 September 2021 issue under the headline "Brain storm"

Teaching methods drawn from cognitive science

Key findings from the EEF review

The Education Endowment Foundation review looking at cognitive science approaches in the classroom lists the following main findings:

1. Cognitive science principles of learning can have a real impact on rates of learning in the classroom. There is value in teachers having working knowledge of cognitive science principles.

2. The evidence for the application of cognitive science principles in everyday classroom conditions (applied cognitive science) is limited, with uncertainties and gaps in knowledge about the applicability of specific principles across subjects and age ranges.

3. Applying the principles of cognitive science is harder than knowing the principles and one does not necessarily follow from the other. Principles do not determine specific teaching and learning strategies or approaches to implementation. Considering how cognitive science principles are implemented in the classroom is critical.

4. Principles of cognitive science interact and should not be considered in isolation from each other, or without taking into account wider practical and pedagogical considerations.

The Education Endowment Foundation's review, Cognitive science approaches in the classroom: a review of the evidence, gives the following examples of theories of effective learning that have been derived from cognitive science research:

Spaced learning: the practice of distributing learning and retrieval opportunities over a longer period of time rather than concentrating them in "massed practice".

Interleaving: switching between different types of problem or different ideas within the same lesson or study session.

Retrieval practice: using a variety of strategies to recall information from memory - for example, flash cards, practice tests or quizzing, or mind mapping.

Strategies to manage cognitive load: focusing students on key information without overloading them; for example, by breaking down or "chunking" subject content or using worked examples, exemplars or scaffolds.

Dual coding: using both verbal and non-verbal information (such as words and pictures) to teach concepts. Dual coding forms one part of a wider theory known as the cognitive theory of multimedia learning (CTML).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is the CogSci revolution of schools about to fall?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After the rapid rise of cognitive science in recent years, you'd be hard-pushed to find a teacher who hasn't yet bought into its evidence about the brain processes involved in learning.

# data[].attributes.body
Microsoft forms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Microsoft Forms is a web-based application that allows you to:

Create and share online surveys, quizzes, polls, and forms.

Collect feedback, measure satisfaction, test knowledge, and more.

Easily design your forms with various question types, themes, and branching logic.

Analyze your results with built-in charts and reports, or export them to Excel for further analysis.

Integrate Microsoft Forms with other Microsoft 365 apps, such as Teams, SharePoint, and OneDrive, so you can collaborate with others and access your forms from anywhere.

Explore templates

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Microsoft Forms - Free tool to create online surveys, forms, polls, and quizzes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Use Microsoft Forms to easily create online surveys, forms, quizzes and questionnaires. AI powered, free survey tool from Microsoft.

# data[].attributes.body
Cognitive science references should be more than jargon busting.  We should try to ensure colleagues know the traditions it comes from and the assumptions it makes.. We should be aware of the limitations of this view and how it differs from other traditions - e.g. cognitive anthropology...

Indeed, yes - very important to understand the differences and assumptions made. Thank you.

# data[].attributes.headline
Overview of new LIS Guides which focus on digital delivery

# data[].attributes.subject
Overview of new LIS Guides which focus on digital delivery

# data[].attributes.headline
School of Education Flexible Learning Improvement and Development Plan

# data[].attributes.subject
School of Education Flexible Learning Improvement and Development Plan

# data[].attributes.body
https://outlooklivechesterac-my.sharepoint.com/:w:/r/personal/w_garner_chester_ac_uk/_layouts/15/Doc.aspx?sourcedoc=%7B5013C6D5-FBF7-465B-90BD-5F1676767D66%7D&file=School%20of%20Education_Flexible%20Learning%20I%26DP%202022-2025.docx&action=default&mobileredirect=true&cid=f5fcebe8-3ed5-48ba-9a0f-3a12d168b20c

# data[].attributes.headline
New Moodle Assessment Tile - further guidance by CAID

# data[].attributes.subject
New Moodle Assessment Tile - further guidance by CAID