It seems contrary to common sense,
but advances in Economics Theory have implications that need to be understood
in the context of Education. Surely not… right?
In order to learn, students make
choices about those things that provide optimal outcomes for their development.
In economics, consumers make purchases that provide optimal outcomes for their
lives. When making choices about strategies for learning, students will choose
strategies that are optimal for understanding. When consumers decide to
purchase items they make choices based on cost-benefit analyses that subjugate
uncertainties. In an ideal world, rationality
and reason influence decision making
processes. Choices, whether consumers or learners, would not be influenced by
external indicators that could have implications for the choices being made as
decisions would be made on simple costs and benefits that are ultimately
informed by individual preferences or prior knowledge.
The world, however, does not
conform to our intuitions – and the above, however intuitive, is misconceived.
Rationality and reason in decision making, whether economic or educational, is
not elusive but rather illusory – and necessarily so. The central pillar of enlightenment
thinking has been called into question by evidence based on the contrary. The challenge,
coming from Behavioural Economics, suggests that human decision making is
strongly determined by contextual factors. For example, the presentation of
information can lead to divergent choices about the same idea based on how it
is presented to us. Behaviour ought to be understood as subject to cognitive
biases, emotional response and social pressure. Economic decision making has
been shown to be immeasurably less deliberate, linear and controlled than it
appears to us. Education is slowly catching on.
So what – making consumer choices
is incommensurable with learning processes and any indication of analogy surely
invites hostility? In one sense I agree – we are built to discriminate on the
basis of qualitative differences. Fundamentally, however, there is no difference
at all: the condition for the possibility of both educative and economic
decision making processes can be reduced to physical processes that occur in
the brain; we are effectively dealing with the same biological processes. Does
this make is analogous? Yes, despite the different objectives that are manifestly
obvious. If we agree (even if we have to suspend our belief for a moment), then
we can ask the question: can anything be extrapolated from Behavioural
Economics research that is applicable in Educational research?
Before we look further into this
there is, perhaps, a more pertinent analogy to be made between this Economic
theory and Educational theory: Behavioural Economics has instigated an analogous
paradigmatic shift in economic theory in the same manner as advances in
evidence-based theory have necessitated a paradigmatic shift in education. The
shift, as outlined in my prior blogs, can be summarised as a transformation in
the way we value evidence over intuition and utilise evidence to advance
knowledge and enhance decision making.
Behavioural Economics too is
consistent with naturalism insofar is concepts prevalent in the discourse can
be reduced to scientifically understood principles – homo economicus has been reduced from rational to predictably irrational on the basis of insurmountable
evidence. Once again, homo economicus guided
by reason and rationality has proved himself more than elusive, but illusory,
and necessarily so. This illusion too can be understood on the basis of our
folk psychological and intuitive default positions – as such they can undergo
the same reduction and, if need be, elimination as invalid concepts
(rationality has been surely eliminated in Behavioural Economics). But enough
on this point.
The overlap between Behavioural
Economics and educational theory does not end purely on the basis of analogy. Behavioural
Economics shares something more fundamental with Hattie’s educational and
paradigm shifting revolution: Dual Systems Theory. The idea that consciousness
is the ‘tip’ of the iceberg has long been established – rather interestingly,
widely held to be intuitive on the basis of deductive reasoning. Once again,
our folk psychology has played an important role in the establishment of this
understanding: whatever epoch you research, a dualistic model has been present
in some manner. Of course, the ‘mind’ has proved more than elusive, and rather
illusory. Reductionism has, however, eliminated the folk psychological concepts
surrounding this illusion and replaced it with the Dual Systems Model – a model
taken very seriously by Hattie and Yates in Visible Learning and the Science of
How We Learn (2014) as well as in Behavioural Economics. This should not be
surprising, despite the overt qualitative differences between economics and
education, as both can be reduced to biological principles and Neuroscientific research.
As both are epistemically concerned with truth
and their evidence reflects objective
facts about the world then we would expect there ought to be a cohesive association
between the two areas of research. I implore you to go and research this model
as it gives credence and enhances our understanding of learners and learning
exponentially.
So what are the implications for
teaching and learning? For Theories of Learning, we can use Behavioural
Economics as an exemplar in the utilisation
of naturalism as beneficial for enhancing
an understanding of the underlying principles involved in decision making – in our
case, educational not economic. For Theories of Teaching, there is an exemplary
application of these understandings
to enhance economic outcomes, or in
our case, educational outcomes. These outcomes, however, come at a contentious
and foreseeable cost: they are deceptive insofar
as they utilise these understandings to enhance economic outcomes. The great moral question for education, however, would
be whether we should use the same deception
to enhance learning outcomes. Theories of Teaching, built on these
principles, would look vastly different from the way in which we design Theories
of Teaching now as we currently aim to provide a transparent and harmonious association
between Theories of Learning and Theories of Teaching. Behavioural Economics
does not disseminate its theories in manifestly transparent ways in which allow
the individual to transcend their impulses – it exploits the consumer on the
basis of deception in order to enhance capital gain. I am not sure what is to
be taken away from this… perhaps I will return to this at some time in the
future.
As noted in the beginning, the
major findings of Behavioural Economics was that by changing the way one
product is marketed that opposing choices can be made about it – why not for
ideas, concepts and knowledge too? Surely this gives us a hint of how to
establish an accurate and sound translation
of theory into practice. Irrespective of its deception, Theories of Teaching must present in ways that correlate with higher probabilities in
positive outcomes. Learning is measured in progress in much the same way that
economics is. Lastly, learning as based on ‘decision making’ surely ought to be
influenced by the same cognitive biases, emotional response and social pressures
that give rise to economic ‘choices’. It’s time we do away with our intuitive
understandings of learning and pave the way forward in educational research
that takes the science seriously. Behavioural Economics leads the way in
paradigm shifts that utilise evidence over intuition – education is still
coming to grips with it. Which way will it go?
No comments:
Post a Comment