Education is a Science and not a Social Science

The Paradigm Shift in education is to now take the science seriously. Not surprisingly each and every one of us holds an understanding of learning occurs. After all, learning is so familiar to us. Each and every one of us has benefited from learning. Our confidence in the educative process learning have given us the confidence to traverse the plains, build political systems, develop quantum mechanics and form social relationships. We are, without question, ‘learners’.

So confident are we in our understanding of learning that very few of us have ever questioned it. I suspect our confidence has been conducive for the survival of the species – after all, efficacy has pushed us far beyond the animal kingdom. But we are still, in spite of our intuitions, animals; we are still bound by our biology, which can be reduced to well-understood chemical processes governed by the laws of physics. We are, after all, carbon based processing systems. Such is the Naturalistic worldview. Education and the concepts inherent are not exempt from this. Of course, our intuition that our intellect and rational capacities have somehow transcended our biological constraints is misguided. I would even go as far as to say it only appears to us in this manner insofar as it enhances our efficacy. But that’s a story for another day.

What John Hatties Visible Learning (2009) starts is a confrontation between our intuitions about learning and the evidence from research. This research is a great starting point to begin with the paradigmatic shift in educational research, but the implications are more pragmatic than theoretical. From this starting point, the most important question is – why are the results like this? Of course, if our intuitions have been deeply shattered by the results, then we need not let our intuitions give us the answer to this very important question. From this point is where the pragmatic becomes the theoretical – the why is answered in Visible Learning and the Science of How We Learn (Hattie & Yates, 2014).

This book is indicative of the revolution in education and the paradigm shift in educational methodological research. Before I explore this point, I want to make clear that ‘intuitions’ are not necessarily wrong. We are, especially as teachers, incredibly good at predicting student success and understanding the motivations and perceptions of students. Intuitions can often tell us what is happening – rarely can it ever answer why. My contention is that the why better informs the ‘what’ and refines it insofar as it deepens our conceptions and improves our accuracy. As we are carbon based processing systems, quite often we revert to intuitive measures in order to conserve energy – a quick fix. We are, after all, bound by the principles of conservation of energy.

There is so much to be written on this point, and I suspect I will write on it at another point in time. For now, my focus is methodology and the paradigm shift as necessitated by Hattie’s Visible Learning research. Henceforth I suspect some views of mine will offend – our inherent humanistic tendencies (once again, biologically driven) shy us away from the naturalistic perspective; quite often I have heard the sentiments that science de-humanises students. Once again, we have to ask ourselves what is true and what we are willing to compromise in order to achieve an understanding of it.

Education has been so prevalent in the tradition of social science and inseparable from the post-modern and humanistic movements in philosophy that it has become sceptical of claims to truth. In this post-modern slumber, where truths are relativised to context and claims of truth are deemed oppressive, no progress has been made in understanding learning in any fundamental way. Of course, it has informed the ‘what’, but it has never (and can never) answer the ‘why’. This is for methodological reasons, and whilst the philosophers can divide amongst themselves which categories of thought they belong to, real work can be made (and has already been made) using the methodology that is epistemologically concerned with truth: science.

Much of what we contemplate in education is inseparable from the philosophy of mind. All movements in education have, in some way, been built on the predominant theories of mind. Only recently have we made considerable progress in understanding learning using the scientific methodology – thus only since recently have we begun to dismantle much of the prevailing wisdom contemplated and disseminated through the social sciences. Teaching too has not been exempt from this. Consequently, teaching too is not exempt from the dismantling – such is the counter-intuitive nature of Hattie’s effect sizes from evidence based research.

If we start from intuition, we start from what is most familiar to us. Learning in this way can be as elucidatory as it can be vague – we can understand learning as gaining a mental grasp of information; making sense of a subject; using skills or knowledge to enhance what we were already capable of doing; taking ownership of knowledge or skills etc. Of course there are many more, but the point is this: any quick Google search will generally only tell you what learning feels like intuitively. Even these ideas use the language of our intuition – mind not brain; knowledge not neural pathways; skills not automaticity; ownership not efficacy. For the most part, these understandings are how we operate as teachers. It is these vague definitions by which may motivate pedagogical beliefs and influence day to day interactions with students and those involved in the educative process. But are these true? What I mean is… do our intuitions grasp reality in any deep sense? I believe not – they are a product of a process which only science can disclose. Before I stated that we are all carbon based processing systems; if we are to take Hattie’s research seriously we must also take naturalism seriously and think through the implications for the profession and our beliefs about education. It is time to start seeing learners and learning as science reveals: brains not minds; neural pathways not knowledge; automaticity not skill; efficacy not ownership.  Once again, our intuitions do not grasp reality but are a product of it. Only a naturalistic framework can provide us with this starting point. If this has not been enough to convince, let me use an example from Hattie’s research.

Counter to our intuitions about student learning, students don’t want to actually think. This provocative research not only pulls the rug from under our feet but (intuitively) feels at odds with our perceptions of learners. After all – we are so confident in our understanding of thinking and its association with learning that why at all would we begin to even question it? Unfortunantely for our intuitions, this argument fits in with a tremendous amount of research. I implore you to visit Willinghams blog to check out the research for yourself. But why stop there?

As carbon based processing systems, human beings are resistant to effort and using squandering resources. We are resource-limited animals, and ‘thinking’ uses up resources exponentially more than other ‘thought processes’. Instead, most learning relies on memory. Extending knowledge converts memories through retrieval, refinement and re-storage – this is why prior knowledge has such a profound effect at an intuitive level. Neuroscience has a lot to say about learning, and my point is not to elaborate these details today. I have used this example to show how our intuitions are wrong about how learners learn, even if it appears to be right to both teacher and student. There are deeper processes at work, and these processes can only be understood through scientific research.

My last point I wish to touch on is the importance of both intuitive and naturalistic frameworks in education. Firstly, we cannot disregard the student’s perception of his/her learning. Whilst we know their perceptions can be reduced to physically understood processes, it nevertheless trivialises or subordinates the experiential aspect of learning to the science of learning. Indeed the science gives us a better understanding of what is really going on, but intuitively understood concepts such as learning are just as valid as the physical processes that give rise to them. I believe this idea is also reflective of the current paradigm shift taking place in educational research, though are yet to find any research in this field. Theories of learning and theories of teaching need to be analysed both from the intuitive perspective as well as the naturalistic framework in order to design effective teaching strategies and learning programs that utilise both to enhance learning. I.e. it is no use to the student to know he/she has cells firing in their left ventro-medial amygdala; for them, all they need to know is that they are experiencing frustration. For the teacher, it is of use to understand these deeper concepts. I will keep reiterating this: teaching is applied brain science.

That’s my thoughts for the day.

In future I will explore:

1. Folk psychology and its effect on education
2. What science has to say about learning
3. Eliminativism or reductionism in education?

Jesse Stephens

28/06/2016

Professional Development: a symptom of a necessity for a shift of paradigm

One of the most common complaints I hear about Professional Development is that it is cyclical. Trends in education (often marketed as based on scientific research) gain popularity - its often short lived. We can look at this in two ways. Firstly, trends change to meet the growing and evolving needs of children. This predicates itself on the notion of differences - often generational. For instance, we are currently in the 'digital native' epoch etc. The second way is more damning - educational trends (in the broadest sense) have failed to make a difference. These can be for a myriad of reasons oft cited by frustrated teachers - changes taught are impractical/illogical/already implemented/against my pedagogical beliefs etc. Whilst this is true, there is a more fundamental reason.


The former way of understanding the cyclical nature of PD to meet the evolving needs of students appeals intuitively to us. However, if we are to take seriously the naturalistic framework, we might have to run counter to our intuitions. The argument goes something like this: irrespective of the changing nature of society, human biology remains the same. In more practical terms, no matter how much we think we are revolutionising teaching strategies that meet the demands of a changing world, we disregard the fact that children are fundamentally the same and learning in fundamentally the same ways. Surely this runs against our common sense - after all, the 'digital native' intuition seems to apply to accurately to the current student as they seem to just 'intuitively' understand technology. It's time we destroy intuition as a means of justifying educational decisions - one of the hallmarks of the Paradigm Shift that is to be understood.


The smoking cannon is summed up here. In summation, the Paradigm Shift necessitated at by Hattie's research is the revolution of taking evidence and scientific research seriously. I will explore this point in-depth in another post. For this point, why a paradigm shift? I want to make clear that the methodology of which professional development has been researched and implemented disregards the latter naturalistic perspective and appeals to our intuitions - these intuitions have led to short lived trends. Short lived trends that, by all accounts (and to sound very cynical) are making individuals a lot of money. Teachers are busy, and 'packages' that are validated by 'science' lure use into a false sense of productivity - we don't have to produce them as they are produced for us, with the added backing of 'research' so we know they must work.


Most professional development is a waste of time and money. A lot of research has been made on this point. But it begs the question, as teachers do approach professional learning with the intention of improving teaching strategies - if professional development were not packaged on pseudo-scientific research that exploits our intuitions, but were designed in ways that had meaningful and powerful changes in learning taking place, would we still be so disillusioned with the process of PD? We need to make changes to the way research is implemented. In the first place, PD must be epistemically concerned with truth. The claims must be not just loosely 'based on research' but verified by research itself. Its time to end the exploitative association between theories of learning (whether scientific or not) and theories of teaching.


Teaching is applied brain science. Hatties 'Visible Learning' points us in this direction - what has a measurable effect must necessarily correlate to the science of learning. This correlation does not necessarily fit our standard of what appeals intuitively, but let this be of no guidance when asking questions of what really works. This example of Professional Learning reflects a deeper movement from intuitive based research to evidence based research.


Jesse Stephens
27/06/2016

Naturalising Education: A New Paradigm?

The release of John Hattie's Visible Learning research has heralded a new 'paradigm' of educational research. Though many commentators have stated this, I am yet to find any substantial research that elucidates what exactly the 'paradigm shift' is. More importantly, what is it a shift away from?

Whilst I have my own views, and hope to substantiate them through this blog, I wonder why little has been said about the paradigm shift itself. In truth, I find it infuriating (but not surprising) that commentators are willing to make such a bold conjectures without feeling the need to elaborate - we are left with confusion and ambiguity, which leads to exploitative 'programs' and 'developments' that contradicts the truth inherent within the paradigm shift itself.

It is not surprising for two reasons. Firstly, teachers and educators are busy. I don't mean to trivialise this point - I too am a primary educator and know the stresses and strains inherent within the teaching profession. Secondly, education in the most broadest sense has hitherto been considered a central pillar of Social Science research. In the opposite manner to which I did not want to trivialise the first point, I cannot overstate this point enough. Educational research has long been inseparable from the movements of social science and research (particularly prevalent in 20th century but also in the Industrial and 'Enlightened' 19th century correlating to movements in social biology and the beginnings of evolutionary biology). In particular, education has aligned with the humanistic and phenomenological bodies of research and, in particular, shared the same methodological frameworks of understanding. Its hard to imagine education in any other sense - but it has been imagined, and is only now starting to come to grips with the implications.

So what, in my opinion, is this new paradigm in educational research? Whilst I don't feel the 'revolution', or 'paradigm shift' has occurred yet, I believe we are moving away from the methodologies that have hitherto dominated the way we perform educational research, and are moving towards a naturalistic framework of understanding.

With all revolutions come counter claims. My aim is to not only elucidate this new paradigm but to anticipate and dispel counter claims against this movement. A naturalistic methodology fundamentally changes the way we talk about learning, learners, teaching, education and pedagogy. It has far reaching implications ranging from pre-service training and interactions in the classroom through to policy and encompasses a wide range of interest groups. Hattie's 'Visible Learning' has begun a movement that will eventually see massive changes to the way we conduct educational research which, in turn, will have powerful implications for teachers in the classroom.

Such are the aims of this blog:

1: Refute educational methodological research that is not consistent with a naturalistic methodology;

2. Explore what a 'Naturalistic Framework' means for education, and what we can anticipate within this new paradigm;

3. Undo what needs undoing; strengthen that which needs to be done;*

4. Revolutionise the way we understand all facets of education and learning.

Jesse Stephens

27/06/2016

* no more quackery and pseudo-science in education - naturalise the system.