Teaching is applied brain
science. We are confronted with two options: apply our intuitive understandings
of learning in the classroom OR apply the scientific understanding in the
classroom. Of the former there is a wealth of ‘research’. These range from an
insurmountable range of products (such as books, Professional Development, university
degrees) that fit nicely with our intuitive understanding of learning. The
default position of most educators is to work from within this position. Of the
latter there is new and exciting research still in its infancy – but there is
also a lot of nonsense as a result.
At no point in pre-service teaching
were we trained to question theories of teaching and learning. We have not been
equipped with the skills necessary to even conceptualise a distinction between
what the scientifically validated theories of learning elucidate and the
edu-nonsensical ‘validate’. Most educators are probably not even interested in making
a distinction – we are time poor, very few of us desire to do research and we
trust the ‘experts’ to get it right. To make matters harder, we are often
tricked into a false conflation that markets theories of teaching as logically developed and empirically conflated
on theories of learning. This ‘based’ on is too often exploited – it’s time we
end the conflation of theories of teaching based on theories of learning. If we
are to take seriously the idea that theories of teaching must be based on how
learners learn, we ought to begin with the science of learning and build our
way up.
To begin with, we must
interrogate our concepts of teaching and learning. Our ideas about learning are
products of brain processes that lead us to oversimplify and or remain naïve –
once again, the student feels frustrated,
he/she does not feel nor have access
to cells firing in their left ventro-medial amygdala. If you disagree with this
point, just think that if we did have access to these phenomena there would be
no need for research and these ideas would not be unintuitive to us. From this
perspective we have to throw our whole understanding of learning into question
in order to better equip us with understanding the fundamental nature of what
is really going on.
Ask
yourself – what are three words that describe each picture below?
The first picture might conjure
up such notions of curiosity, excitement, happiness, learning, exploring etc.
The second may conjure up ‘neural firing’ or ‘brain activity’ or ‘building
neural pathways’. Despite an obvious distinction between concepts, we are
effectively looking at the same picture. Folk psychology manifests as a
distinctly overt biological drive to attribute thoughts/emotions/intentions to
other people. This ability to attribute mental states has been conducive to the
survival of the species (in line with our naturalistic framework); but in the
comforts of modern society where the necessities for survival contrast our most
primitive concerns, the determination to attribute mental states to others
(making inferences based on our prior experiences) is still our default
position and, as teachers are human beings, and humans are constrained by our
biological limitations governed by the laws of physics, folk psychology remains
rife in the classroom. When talking about the boys gardening, whilst it is
sufficient to say they ‘feel’ curious, it is not accurate to say they are. What
they are feeling is the innate drive to build on prior knowledge – their sense
of ‘curiosity’ manifests as a result of indeterminate neural pathways and the
necessity to make sense of what would otherwise remain a nonsensical activity. Whilst
there is a wealth of knowledge related to intuitive theories of learning, only
the scientific methodology can disclose the truth behind our intuitions.
In discussing education in the
broader context of objective truth, we need to be equipped with being able to
draw a distinction between sense and nonsense. I have 4 criteria that offer
remarkably good ways of dealing with the problem. Firstly, is someone trying to
sell you something? Chances are (despite what I see as honest and sincere
educators) people are selling you something that appeals to your common sense
but nonetheless has little to no credibility – and as pointed out in
prior blogs, lead to wasted time, effort and money with little to no changes in
classroom practice and student achievement. Which brings me to my second point –
does it have predictive success and explanatory power that is measurable?
Thirdly, whatever the theory of teaching or learning may be - is it
falsifiable? That it so say, the strength of the scientific method lay not in
the ability to prove an idea correct, but the inability to prove it wrong
(herein lies the strength of the scientific method). Lastly, if the concept has
predictive success and explanatory power but nonetheless has no objective
existence, then what empirically verified processes can it be reduced to? Whether
we are talking about folk psychological concepts such as referred to above, or
intuitive based concepts around learning, we need to interrogate them and
reduce them to scientifically validated principles in order to be able to talk
about them in more accurate and pertinent ways.
Something such as ‘the Zone of
Proximal Development’ has an entrenched existence in educational discourse. Firstly,
are people selling us this concept? YES. Many people/programs/theories market
themselves on this theory and make money validating their claims and products
on this concept. Does it have predictive success and explanatory power? YES, it
is instrumentally useful in analysing student’s prior knowledge and making
informed judgements about where to take students next. Is it falsifiable? YES because
the ‘Zone of Proximal Development’ does not exist in itself; it only approximately
refers to something more fundamental. Does it need reduction? YES, the ‘Zone of
Proximal Development’ needs reduction to more fundamental processes in order
for us to understand it better. There is no doubt it approximates something and
guides us in the right direction, but once again, the intuitive nature of the
theory needs reducing to a naturalistic framework that is guided by the
biological, chemical and physical processes that govern everything from the
quantum to the cosmological.
Thought for the day.
Jesse Stephens
28/06/2016
For research on understanding the difference between science and
pseudoscience see:
Pigliucci, M, 2010 Nonsense of
Stilts: How to tell Science from Bunk
Kuhn, T. The Nature of Scientific
Revolutions (on paradigm shifts)
Popper, Karl, 1963. Conjectures
and Refutations (on falsifiability and demarcation)
For Research on Reductionism and Folk Psychology see:
Any work by Patricia and Paul
Churchland on Eliminativism and Folk Psychology
Any suggestions are welcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment