In cognitive science, although progress has been made in dissecting the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying learning, little is known of those supporting teaching. This has become especially untenable in the light of mounting evidence that teachers have an important, long-lasting impact on their pupils; for example, econometric studies on the “teacher effect” extending into real life indicators of socio-economic status, including: retirement plans, salary, and house ownership (Bressoux & Bianco Reference Bressoux and Bianco2004; Bressoux et al. Reference Bressoux, Kramarz and Prost2008; Chetty et al. Reference Chetty, Friedman and Rockof2011; Kane & Staiger Reference Kane and Staiger2008; Konstantopoulos Reference Konstantopoulos2007; Nye et al. Reference Nye, Hedges and Konstantopoulos2004; Rivkin et al. Reference Rivkin, Hanushek and Kain2005). Educational research and the mind and brain sciences have strengthened their cooperation during the last decade, to the extent that a new field of research is developing (Brabeck Reference Brabeck2008; Fischer et al. Reference Fischer, Daniel, Immordino-Yang, Stern, Battro and Koizumi2007; Pasquinelli Reference Pasquinelli2011; Reference Pasquinelli and Laewen2013a; Reference Pasquinelli2013b). In this commentary, we advocate the development of a specific line of research on mind, brain, and education, with a translational aim and an evidence-based attitude at its core, devoted to the understanding and betterment of teaching skills (see also: Battro Reference Battro2010; Rodriguez Reference Rodriguez2012; Strauss & Ziv Reference Strauss and Ziv2012).

Kline's framework for going beyond traditional sector-honed definition theories to observe teaching practices, across species and across cultures, provides a base from whence we can ask the questions that have historically driven a wedge between nonhuman and human teaching debates: (1) Whether there is something like a “teaching instinct” in humans (teaching as a natural cognitive ability, as hypothesized in Csibra [Reference Csibra2007], Csibra & Gergely [Reference Csibra and Gergely2009], and Strauss [Reference Strauss, Pillemer and White2005]); and (2) whether and how the teaching instinct relates to or interacts with other cognitive functions (Barnett Reference Barnett1973; Olson & Bruner Reference Olson, Bruner, Olson and Torrance1996; Pearson Reference Pearson1989; Premack Reference Premack and Gazzaniga1984; Tomasello et al. Reference Tomasello, Kruger and Ratner1993).

In order to answer these questions, we believe that a promising approach would be to use the experimental toolkit of cognitive psychology and neuroscience and implement quantitative studies. First, we should develop solid psychometric measures for evaluating teaching abilities, and then run correlational studies (based on inter-individual differences), assessing whether the success of professional as well as non-professional individuals in complex teaching tasks is related to their skills in the cognitive domains that are classically thought to be relevant for teaching (Theory of Mind [ToM], empathy, metacognition, general intelligence). This research should also compare kin versus non-kin use of Kline's taxonomy types in adult–child interactions, and include individuals with atypical development. One interesting population would be that characterized by a non-severe form of autism, Asperger syndrome: a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by poor ToM and cognitive empathy, but with preserved metacognition, affective empathy, and general intelligence (Charman et al. Reference Charman, Jones, Pickles, Simonoff, Baird and Happé2011). Studying teaching abilities under different neurocognitive constraints could help refine the role of specific cognitive skills in teaching. Another method used in cognitive psychology to assess the relation between different cognitive functions is that of training. In order to isolate the cognitive determinants of the “teaching instinct,” this research program should, therefore, include training studies aiming at improving either Theory of Mind, or empathy, or metacognition, and measuring to what extent a transfer can be observed to teaching skills. Finally, comparing the data from objective studies with the subjective views of teachers, their folk theories of teaching and learning (Dekker et al. Reference Dekker, Lee, Howard-Jones and Jolles2012; Olson & Bruner Reference Olson, Bruner, Olson and Torrance1996; Pasquinelli Reference Pasquinelli2012; Strauss Reference Strauss, Torff and Sternberg2001) and one's own self-assessment, could be key for gaining valuable insights on discrepancies between facts and intuitions about teaching.

It also seems reasonable that research on teaching should broaden its view so as to account for mechanisms that do benefit the teacher as much as the learner, by considering that teaching allows the teacher to gain cognitive advantages, and perhaps also prestige, leadership, and/or social status. Historically, the functional characterization of teaching in animal studies (Caro & Hauser Reference Caro and Hauser1992) explicitly excludes behaviors benefiting the teacher. However, as Kline states, “If there are costs of teaching, then there must be some benefit to the teacher, in order for teaching to evolve” (target article, sect. 6.1, para. 1). Kline suggests that the benefits of teaching are indirect, the pupil being a gene carrier, protector, or mate (see also Fogarty et al. Reference Fogarty, Strimling and Laland2011; Hoppitt et al. Reference Hoppitt, Brown, Kendal, Rendell, Thornton, Webster and Laland2008; Skerry et al. Reference Skerry, Lambert, Powell and McAuliffe2013). However, it is our belief that teaching also serves purposes that are advantageous to the teacher himself (beyond indirect gains and kin selection). For example, it has been observed that learning in order to teach (i.e., preparing for teaching) enhances content understanding and retention as compared to studying for pure learning (Bargh & Schul Reference Bargh and Schul1989), and research on peer teaching suggests that both teacher and learner show benefits (Brown & Palincsar Reference Brown, Palincsar and Resnick1989). More research that focuses specifically on the teacher's gains is required.

Furthermore, a respected view in evolutionary biology characterizes communication and signaling as serving both altruistic and egoistic aims, namely: influence upon the addressee, that is, manipulation of conspecifics and prey behavior. The view predicts the coevolution of skills for persuading and for resisting persuasion when detrimental (Dawkins & Krebs Reference Dawkins and Krebs1978; Krebs & Dawkins Reference Krebs, Dawkins, Krebs and Davies1984; Fernald Reference Fernald, Barkow, Cosmides and Tooby1992). The prediction seems to be confirmed, in the case of humans, by the observation that persuasion skills coexist with a complex of vigilance mechanisms that act upon the information given as much as the information giver (Harris & Corriveau Reference Harris and Corriveau2011; Sperber et al. Reference Sperber, Clément, Heintz, Mascaro, Mercier, Origgi and Wilson2010). If teaching behavior also proffers advantages to the teacher, a cost-based calculus might not be enough to predict when more complex (and costly) forms of teaching will spontaneously appear. A set of questions then follows:

1. 1. Which are the specificities of the persuasion-related displays that teachers commonly employ, in comparison with sales-persons' and leaders' techniques aimed at persuading their audience?

2. 2. What is their impact on learning outcomes (understanding, retention)? Are there other measurable effects upon the teacher's prestige, status, and position?.

Answering these questions, and more generally acquiring a better understanding of the cognitive underpinnings of teaching behaviors, is a necessary condition for explaining, and taking advantage of, the “teacher effect.” This will benefit education by enhancing the efficacy of professional development (Harris & Sass Reference Harris and Sass2011; Yoon et al. Reference Yoon, Duncan, Wen-Yu Lee, Scarlos and Shapley2007) and the development of strategies and technologies that exploit and supplement “natural” teaching.