At the online professional workshop of the Neurodiversity Methodological Centre, the research group’s methodological publication was presented. The book Changing Learning Environment generated significant interest, as it introduces ways in which the methodologies used during the research can be applied and adapted in practice, offering possibilities that can be integrated into teaching.
At the Department of Automation at BME, Associate Professor Dr. Bertalan Forstner, a member of the research group, is guiding his students in the development of the Coglica test – https://coglica.aut.bme.hu/cogniapp.
The first research meeting of the year was held online on February 9. The web interface is essentially complete; the next task is to refine the test items/games.
On February 2, 2026, the professional workshop at Apor Vilmos Catholic College focused on the role of the CogniPlay method – particularly in developing mathematical thinking. The workshop was led by Ágota Buzogány and Imre Kökényesi.
The professional discussion was grounded in a practical demonstration centred on the transition from kindergarten to school. The workshop materials are available at the following link: CogniPlay.
On January 17, our research project continued with the use of the Sensorimotor and Cognitive Profile Test. Preliminary assessments were launched at Beijing Huijia, a Chinese private school, to support the development of the PlayAbility profile test to be created within the CogniPlay system. A minor difficulty was that the children’s English proficiency was not sufficient, so the teachers had to provide a lot of assistance.
Response by Éva Gyarmathy, Research Leader:
The reviews refer exclusively to the absence of Q1–Q2 publications. (Reviewer 1 even evaluated the other criteria in light of this, which is a rather unusual procedure.) However, neither the call for proposals, nor the approved research plan, nor the contract contains any requirement stating that Q1–Q2 publications are a condition. No amended contract was issued that would introduce such expectations. Nevertheless, the research group has published in journals of this type, and several further publications are currently in progress, as we continue to publish the results of the research and its continuation even after the project period.
In the research plan, we explicitly emphasized the interdisciplinary nature of our project, because we consider it one of the necessary directions of change in pedagogy that teachers, when facing the challenges of the 21st century, should be able to draw on the knowledge of other professions as well. Accordingly, researchers and students from spatial‑design/architectural and IT fields also participated in the project, and their contributions are reflected in the publications. We are unable to interpret the comments made by Reviewer 1 in the textual justification of point 5 of the review.
In agreement with our research group, I will not modify the professional report, as our research and its results fully comply with the requirements set out in the call for proposals, the approved research plan, and the contract.
On November 21, the Program Secretary communicated via email the rejection of the professional report. Since that time, however, no detailed or official evaluation has been provided. Consequently, albeit belatedly, we present here the text of the email together with the response of Éva Gyarmathy, head of the research group. The rejection:
Dear Research Group Leader, Dear Éva,
On November 20, the Review Committee evaluated the professional reports submitted under the MTA Public Education Development Research Grant. Unfortunately, based on the final report of the MTA–AVKF Learning Environment Research Group, the minimum publication requirements were not met; therefore, the Committee did not accept the final professional report.
The Committee’s unanimous decision is that, should the research group remedy the deficiencies by September 30, 2026, the professional report will be re-evaluated one year later. If the deficiencies are not remedied, the amount of the final year’s funding must be repaid to the MTA. The head of the host research institution will also be notified of the Committee’s decision.
Furthermore, at the Committee’s recommendation, the research group’s presentation has been removed from the December 3 event.
We kindly request that you take note of the above and submit the supplementary report by the specified deadline
We did not receive any further information; therefore, on November 27, Éva Gyarmathy sent the following response:
Dear Éva Sugár (Secretary), László Bozó (Chair), and Krisztián Józsa (Co-Chair),
It is my assumption that the message conveyed in the email we received from you does not constitute an official communication. To date, the formal review issued by the Review Committee has not arrived, and therefore I can only respond without knowledge of the specific details.
The opinion of the Review Committee is important to us, and naturally the Committee may decide that our work does not meet the required standards. At the same time, I must emphasize that, according to the call for proposals, our research and financial plan, and the grant agreement (all attached), we have fulfilled all of our obligations. For this reason, the threat of repayment of the funding is incomprehensible.
Throughout the project, we repeatedly received messages about changing conditions—initially promises of rewards, later threats of penalties. However, no contract amendment was ever made. In the absence of such an amendment, we were able to proceed only according to the original research and financial plan. The approved plan did not include publications requiring payment of fees. Our research group prioritized free international and domestic publications. In line with the spirit of the call for proposals, we involved teachers in the research and allocated costs accordingly. Nevertheless, we managed to cover the fee for one expensive Q1 publication, which was successfully published.
If the call for proposals had specified the number of publications requiring significant financial expenditure, we would have developed a completely different research plan and optimized the project for Q1–Q2 publications. Retrospectively, during the course of the research, it was not possible for us to make such substantial changes. On this basis, the threat of repayment of the grant funds by the Review Committee is unfounded, and we request its withdrawal.
Furthermore, it is incomprehensible that, after being invited to present the publication on the methodologies applied during the project, the Review Committee prohibited us from presenting our publication that disseminates the methodology developed in the research. This is despite the fact that it is clearly part of our work and, beyond Q1–Q2 publications, it is our obligation to contribute to the development of Hungarian public education. Our publication has nonetheless appeared, even if its presentation has been denied by the Committee.
Beyond the above, the decision is highly problematic from an educational policy perspective. The procedure of the Review Committee reflects the most characteristic features of the “black pedagogy” prevalent in Hungarian education: narrow, domain-focused evaluation; punishment and exclusion; persecution of diversity; unclear circumstances; and shifting expectations to which one is expected to adapt mid-process.
On behalf of our research group, I request that the procedure of the Review Committee be reconsidered. We expect not only a reconsideration of our own case, but also a fairer evaluation of other similarly penalized research groups, in line with the renewal of perspectives required for the development of Hungarian public education.
We continue to await the professional analysis provided by the Review Committee. It is difficult to conceive that, due to a factor not included in the research plan or the contract, the Review Committee of a program conducted under the auspices of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences would disregard the research group’s entire four years of work.
On November 13, during our symposium at the National Conference on Educational Sciences in Szeged, our presentations were followed by an engaging professional discussion in the lecture hall. Opponent Nóra Rapos highlighted the interdisciplinarity of our project and the issue of educational innovations, which generated considerable interest among the participants.
Following the publication of our volume by Móra Publishing House, TV2’s Lifestyle Magazine on November 16 discussed our research and we demonstrated its results in practice.
To introduce the four years of work carried out by our MTA-AVKF research group at Apor Vilmos Catholic College, a press release was issued. As a result, Éva Gyarmathy presented our research in several radio interviews. For example, on November 21, she spoke with Egon Rónai on Spirit FM about the group’s results and their significant aspects for public education.
The Changing Learning Environment – Methodology for Preventing Learning Failures
Learning can be an exhilarating adventure – when the environment is thoughtfully designed to support it.
The dynamic interplay between a child’s abilities and their surroundings shapes whether learning unfolds as a joyful path of discovery or a frustrating struggle.
This publication is for educators who aspire to create inclusive, responsive learning environments where every child can experience success and thrive.
A truly effective learning space rests on three transformative pillars: skill development, spatial organization, and instructional design. Each element is flexible, interwoven, and open to creative reinvention.
Inside, you’ll find a hands-on methodological toolkit that empowers teachers to adapt their classrooms to the evolving needs of their students.
We don’t offer one-size-fits-all solutions – we offer keys to growth: for learners, for educators, and for the broader educational system.
On October 15, at the Early Childhood Education Conference in Vác, we will showcase our research-based methodological publication within a dedicated session designed to highlight our practical innovations.
Session title: Methods for Transforming the Learning Environment of Children Starting School
Session chair: Éva Gyarmathy
Session format: Presentations and practical demonstrations
Presenters and topics:
Description:
In this session, we will present the methodologies and practical insights developed over four years by the MTA-AVKF Learning Environment Research Group. Our work focuses on transforming the learning environment for first and second grade students through the integration of evidence-based developmental approaches and classroom structures that actively support differentiated, learner-centred teaching.
Our symposium proposal submitted for ONK2025 in Szeged has received positive reviews, so we will have the opportunity to present the diverse results of our research on November 13.
Program of our symposium:
Possibilities and Obstacles in Transforming the Learning Environment in First and Second Grade (Chair: Éva Gyarmathy, Opponent: Nóra Rapos)