Introducing a new section: the Reference Library.
Twice a week, a link to a piece of research or theory, with an overview and TL/DR for those of you who want the short version :)
This section will be available to all subscribers for the next 4 weeks. After that it will become part of the paid subscribers plan.
Link and Overview
Naomi Fisher1 argues against the supposed settling of the argument regarding how children best learn in this article published by The British Psychological Society.
TL/DR
Written from a UK context where, it seems, the Education Secretary has announced that the evidence is in, and progressive education ideas are out. Fisher outlines the evidence for this ‘traditional’ approach, and then challenges it.
The evidence, which is grounded in cognitive science, says
Expertise relies on knowledge
Experts know more
Critical thinking happens once sufficient knowledge is required
Ergo,
Education should be about knowledge acquisition
The best way for this to occur is when an expert (teacher) leads students through this acquisition
Kids need to be attentive (still, listen)
Repetition and practice are the best strategies
Fisher asks whether this actually reflects what we want of education. She starts by giving the example of an exemplar school for this ‘science- backed’ approach. At that school, everything is about knowledge acquisition.
The pedagogical ‘system’ is: reading, explanation, practice
This system doesn’t change across the curriculum
There is no differentiation
If no learning happens it is the learner’s fault
Students are punished for not meeting expectations (behaviour, performance)
Student pass, often well, but are under pressure to do so.
Fisher asks,
What about intrinsic motivation?
Isn’t the question about WHY children might want to learn missing?
Doesn’t the emphasis on knowledge prioritise the culture of ‘dead white males’ and privilege white middle class families?
What about Gopnik’s ‘child as a scientist’ theory?
Is it really true that only experts can think critically?
Given this approach is reliant on student sitting still and listening for hours on end, doesn’t it “play to children’s weaknesses rather than their strengths”?
Fisher also highlights what she calls a leap in logic. Most of the cognitive science research about expertise has been done on adults who have been motivated to learn, and asks how this is relevant to children who are being made to learn under compulsion.
She ends by making the point that, while there is no doubt that skill and drill is effective for memorisation, there is no evidence that it helps students to think creatively and critically.
A clinical psychologist and author of Changing Our Minds: How Children Can Take Control of their Learning