Daniel Willingham--Science & Education
Hypothesis non fingo
  • Home
  • About
  • Books
  • Articles
  • Op-eds
  • Videos
  • Learning Styles FAQ
  • Daniel Willingham: Science and Education Blog

Teachers shouldn't need to learn neuroscience

6/4/2012

 
This article from Education Week suggests that teachers ought to learn neuroscience.

That strikes me as a colossal waste of teachers' time.

The offered justification is that a high percentage of teacher's hold false beliefs about the brain, and thus ought to be "armed" to evaluate claims that they encounter in professional development sessions, the media, etc.

But it takes an awful lot of work for any individual to become knowledgeable enough about neuroscience to evaluate new ideas. And why would it stop at neuroscience? One could make the same case for cognitive psychology, developmental psychology, social psychology, sociology, cultural studies, and economics, among other fields

Further, this suggestion seems like unnecessary duplication of effort. What's really needed is for a few trusted educators to evaluate new ideas, and to periodically bring their colleagues up to date.

In fact, that's how the system is set up. But it's not working.

First, the neuro-myths mentioned in the article ought to be defused during teacher training. Some programs do so, I'm sure, but most appear not to be doing a good enough job. It's certainly true that textbooks aimed at teachers don't do enough in this regards. Learning styles, for example, go unmentioned, or perhaps get a paragraph in which the theory is (accurately) said to be lacking evidence. Given the pervasiveness of these myths, schools of education ought to address the problem with more vigor.

Second, there is virtually always someone in the district central office who is meant to be the resource person for professional development: is this PD session likely to be legit, or is this person selling snake oil?  If teachers are exposed to PD with sham science, the right response, it seems to me, is not to suggest that teachers learn some neuroscience. The right response is outrage directed at the person who brought the knucklehead in there to do the PD session.

Third, it would make perfect sense if professional groups helped out in this regard. The Department of Education has tried with the What Works Clearinghouse and with it's various practice guides. These have had limited success. It might be time for teachers to take a try at this themselves.

Teachers don't need to learn neuroscience, or better put, teachers shouldn't need to learn neuroscience--not to be protected from charlatans. Teachers need to learn things that will directly help their practice. Charlatan protection ought to come from institutions: from schools of education, from district central offices, and (potentially) from institutions of teachers' own creation.
T. Langston
6/4/2012 12:14:06 pm

With all due respect, I have to say that my jaw dropped when I read this article. I recently graduated from college, and minored in cognitive science. I would WHOLEHEARTEDLY recommend this course of action to anyone else going into the teaching profession.

Learning about: cognitive heuristics (and biases), working and procedural memory, implicit knowledge, spacing effects, visual-spacial retrieval cues and encoding, attention, embodied cognition--as well as perception ( !!! ), linguistic anthropology and the effect of culture in creating our cognitive architecture --can only help me to choose and defend lessons that will more closely meet the needs of my students. Even neuroscience lessons about the reticular activating system, neurotransmitters, or action potentials (which may or may directly apply to my classroom activities) helped me to develop a deeper understanding and appreciation for the inner workings of science (organic chemistry, biology, and so on) and in turn, this can only help me to foster a greater scientific curiosity in my students.

For the record, the absolutely LAST thing that I ever hope to teach my students is to just relax and let someone else do their thinking for them. I am quite capable of both understanding complex science AND providing energetic, creative, and responsive lessons for my students.

I chose to study cognitive science (including neuroscience classes) over more courses in "how to decorate a bulletin board 101" (because if I had to take one more inane class I was going to scream)! Is it too much to ask to let teachers understand their own craft-- or should they just be expected to continue to passively follow the flood of scripts and new teaching materials that are endlessly supplied "for" them?

Happily, I also became acquainted with many peer reviewed journals (my favorite is Oxford's Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience) so I also have experience reading information that can help me to separate myths and urban legends from actual science, as well as instruction in how to evaluate my sources.

The idea that teachers need "protection from charlatans" feels incredibly patronizing. I would rather have the information that I need to protect myself -- and then I would be very grateful for those willing to support me and add to that knowledge, whenever the need arises.

Thank you so much for allowing me a venue to express my view. Again, I meant no disrespect.

Used polaris atv parts link
9/6/2012 12:13:49 am

i like this blog!thank u!!

Dan Willingham link
6/4/2012 12:51:14 pm

@T.Langston
Thanks very much for your thoughts.
I'm not arguing that basic sciences are not applicable to education, and that teachers knowing findings from these basic sciences is not a good idea. The last ten years of my career has been devoted to that proposition.
(On this subject, btw, it's important to draw a distinction between behavioral science (such as cog psych) and neuroscience. I think the former is much more obviously applicable to the classroom than the latter, and so it's much more obvious that findings there will be useful to teachers. I've written on this in several places, accessible in the "articles" section of this site.)
This is a very different function, however, than knowing neuro or cog sci for the purpose of guarding against *new* findings introduced to you that are false. There is, I'm arguing, a big difference between understanding the findings of a field and applying them and *evaluating* the scientific basis of new findings. (This blog posting was written in reaction to an article in Ed Week that argued that teachers ought to learn more neuroscience so that they wouldn't fall prey to neuromyths.)

My point is NOT "there, there, don't worry your pretty little heads about the science. . .let the scientists take care of that for you." My point is that in most (if not all) professions to which science applies, there are people whose full-time job it is to comb through the enormous research literature produced each year and to try to come to some determination as to whether or not the weight of evidence is such that practice should be changed. My pediatrician is (IMHO) brilliant, but she doesn't read the tens of thousand of medical journal articles published each year to determine what in her practice ought to change. That's my point: most professions don't expect practitioners to make those judgments, not because they think practitioners are dumb but because it's an unreasonable expectation. If you're treating kids 50 hours/week how are you supposed to keep up with the medical literature? If you're teaching 50 hours/week how are you supposed to keep up with neuroscience (and all the other relevant fields)?
There are people in education whose job it supposedly is to do exactly this--to keep up to date with the latest research in all of the fields that relate to education, and to be gatekeepers of sorts--and they are not doing it.
The alternative is either that knowledge of these fields is a prerequisite for all teachers, or to rely on a highly informal system of knowledge sharing among teachers. I think the former is unreasonable and the latter is the current de facto system, which isn't working.
Thanks again for your thoughts.

T. Langston
6/4/2012 01:34:47 pm

Dr. Willingham,

Thank you for your reply! If you are calling out people who are not doing their jobs with the necessary level of integrity required, then I can support that, and stand corrected.

In school, I found that many of the other education students were susceptible to the myths you mentioned. They are pervasive in the media. I was sad that many of these things were never addressed in my education classes (so I was always sharing information from my cog sci classes with the other students and professors). I felt that my neuroscience classes were instrumental in helping me to understand the underlying biology (behind some of the theories). Its so fascinating to learn how much we still don't know!

I know that I will never be able to keep up with the exponentially rising tide of new information, and I am glad that there are those who make it their job to sort through and rate the validity of research. (Thank you!) I am also glad however, that I do have some ability to spot and extinguish some of the more glaring errors.

I also became a member of some cognitive science organizations, and hope to receive periodicals and updates for a long time to come. These will be used to supplement the materials from the discipline of education. I hope that this interdisciplinary approach will help my professional development as I compare and contrast the two perspectives.

Thank you so much for the conversation. I will look forward to your future articles.



Dan Willingham link
6/4/2012 10:28:26 pm

Right, it seems obvious that some teachers will get interested in neurosci and dig deeper into it. . .some will get interested in the research literature on the emotional life of tweens, some will follow the literature on new technologies, some will gain expertise on the impact of poverty on family life . . . all of these are valuable and enrich the teacher's experience and improve his or her practice. I'm not arguing that this sort of knowledge can't be valuable to teachers. . .I'm arguing against the idea that all teachers ought to learn neuroscience to ensure that they don't fall prey to neuromyths.
And I'm glad you dig cognitive science :)

Matthew Levey link
6/5/2012 02:06:54 am

Dan,

Well said, as usual. From what I can see my wife keeps plenty busy preparing lessons and keeping up with the usual administrative details without being further burdened to develop her own PD. That is a school-wide or district function. But rarely done well.

With regard to poor Howard Gardner, I ran across a magnet school 'dedicated' to the idea of multiple intelligence. Sponsored by a university, no less. (or maybe, you'd say 'as expected') http://www.crec.org/magnetschools/schools/uofh/index.php

Lighting the way to better professional practices is not easy, but we're all the better for your efforts.

Dan Willingham link
6/5/2012 10:06:39 pm

My wife as well!
The stuff that has been promoted in the name of Multiple Intelligences is crazy. I've made plain that I think there are better theories of intelligence, but the theory is not nearly so off as some of the applications. I imagine it would be a full-time job trying to track them down and squash them :(

CM
6/5/2012 11:23:46 am

My experience with trying to expose teachers, administrators and fellow board members to quality research (though your ariticles and others from American Educator, What Works Clearinghouse, other cognitive scientists and the lastest research in this area, and etc.) to combat some of the teaching myths was met with a weariness. I was told that you can find "research" to justify anything. Gently, I tried personal experiences and humor--nothing worked. These myths are woven into an ideology that runs deep. They won't give them up easily. Their thinking is CLOSED. But the rest of us that are OPEN to research and new learning will hear and adjust accordingly.

So, again--thank you!!!

Dan Willingham link
6/5/2012 10:07:48 pm

CM--this is sad to hear, but I'm really interested in your thoughts on why it's so. These are not dumb people, nor mean-spirited, right? So what's up, in your view?

Cal
6/6/2012 04:31:45 am

I keep wondering what teachers you are talking about. Do you only run into progressive teachers who yammer endlessly about social justice, probably went to an elite ed school (or TFA) ? Because those are the only teachers I know who ever mention theories or research. Most teachers are resolutely (and surprisingly) indifferent to theory. They know what works for them. They know what helps their kids. And they think theories are a big joke invented by idiots with nothing better to do.

Now administrators--teachers that were--they love theories. It gives them something to pretend they're doing to raise test scores. Ed schools, sure. But teachers ignore what they learn in ed school.

As to the larger issue of why teachers don't change their practice--well, I seem to recall a guy just recently talking about the difficulty of researching education methods and the importance of just setting broad outlines. Where'd he go? Because that guy might know why teachers tend to value their own experience over research, whether it be the bogus New New thing or the Hey, No, I'm a Real Researcher with Genuine Information to Give you sort.

Dan Willingham link
6/6/2012 04:47:43 am

unclear to me why you're talking about social justice in this post.
as to whether teachers are interested in neuroscience, they are, according to a survey published a few years back by Paul Howard-Jones, and replicated in a paper that's in press.

Cal
6/6/2012 07:05:28 am

I'm not talking about social justice, just pointing out that obsession with it goes hand in hand the sort of teacher who preaches multiple intelligence.

Are you talking about <a href="http://www.bristol.ac.uk/education/people/academicStaff/edpahj/publications/perceptions.pdf">this paper</a>, or a different one?

If it's this paper, they surveyed 340 teachers in the UK, who were attending, by choice, either a conference called The Learning Brain Expo or one called Education and Brain Research. If there's another paper, great. Otherwise, these teachers are Brits voluntarily attending conferences in education and neuroscience, with a response rate of around 25%.This was followed up with a total of 11 interviews, a few of them with "local teachers in Bristol". I'm not sure how that translates to "teachers are interested in neuroscience". I'm not even convinced it translates to "UK teachers are interested in neuroscience." Perhaps "UK teachers who attend conferences on education and neuroscience are interested in neuroscience."

So if I misread or used the wrong survey, fine. Otherwise, I'm deeply skeptical of the premise that a meaningful percentage of teachers--particularly US teachers--have any particular interest in neuroscience, correctly or incorrectly applied.

Cal
6/6/2012 07:05:57 am

I'm not talking about social justice, just pointing out that obsession with it goes hand in hand the sort of teacher who preaches multiple intelligence.

Are you talking about this paper, or a different one: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/education/people/academicStaff/edpahj/publications/perceptions.pdf

If it's this paper, they surveyed 340 teachers in the UK, who were attending, by choice, either a conference called The Learning Brain Expo or one called Education and Brain Research. If there's another paper, great. Otherwise, these teachers are Brits voluntarily attending conferences in education and neuroscience, with a response rate of around 25%.This was followed up with a total of 11 interviews, a few of them with "local teachers in Bristol". I'm not sure how that translates to "teachers are interested in neuroscience". I'm not even convinced it translates to "UK teachers are interested in neuroscience." Perhaps "UK teachers who attend conferences on education and neuroscience are interested in neuroscience."

So if I misread or used the wrong survey, fine. Otherwise, I'm deeply skeptical of the premise that a meaningful percentage of teachers--particularly US teachers--have any particular interest in neuroscience, correctly or incorrectly applied.

Dan willingham link
6/6/2012 09:53:17 am

good point about the sample. the new one is better, still not ideal.

Dan Willingham
8/3/2012 09:35:23 am

Cal, I remembered on conversation on this topic--that new article I mentioned is out, but behind a paywall
Teacher Perceptions of NeuroEducation: A Mixed Methods Survey of Teachers in the United States (pages 174–176)
Lauren Serpati and Ashlee R. Loughan Mind, Brain, & Education vol 6, issue 3

Cal
6/6/2012 07:07:47 am

Sorry about the double post--the interface gave an error and said it wasn't submitted.

Dorothy Bishop link
6/9/2012 06:34:59 pm

I find it extremely telling that T. Langston's list of the things that are helpful does not contain anything from neuroscience: this is all psychology aka cognitive science. The actual neuroscience mentioned is seen as just improving his/her scientific understanding: great! but it might as well be physics etc.
See this piece in Nature for a critique of the hyping of neuroscience applications to education:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5843/1293.full
(Not sure if there's a paywall but I can send pdf if necessary).
I'm going to compile a list of educational practices that really do depend on a knowledge of the brain, so please send me any that you know of.

Max Coltheart link
6/9/2012 07:24:34 pm

Two points.

1. What published neuroscientific research is there that has any strong implications for classroom practice? This question was asked in Coltheart, M. & McArthur, G. Neuroscience, education and educational efficacy research. (2012). In Anderson, M. & Della Sala, S. (Eds). Neuroscience in Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press ( a book that is highly relevant to this thread, of course), and Dorothy Bishop's post asks the same question. If no one can provide such examples . . .

2. T. Langton is the kind of graduate from teacher training institutions that we want. But, at least as far as the UK and Australia are concerned, teacher training institutions produce few such people. Just one example: In the UK, Howard-Jones (2011, cited in the above chapter) reports a study he and colleagues did of 158 teacher-training graduates about to enter secondary schools. Of this group, 20% believed that their brains would shrink if they drank less than six to eight glasses of water per day; 65% believed that physical coordination exercises could improve the integration of left-hemisphere functions with right-hemisphere functions; and 82% believed that studies of brain function justify the conclusion that teaching children in their preferred learning style could improve learning outcomes. These people then go out and become members of the teaching profession in the UK. It is similar in Australia.

Robert Kybird
6/9/2012 10:42:52 pm

I think it is important to understand two aspects of education. Task-based, includes project work and a leisurely approach to when the task is carried out, with accompanying difficulty in assessing whether the work is entirely the student's own. Knowledge based, especially important in sciences and language, where robust understanding of the rules, equations ane detail are necessary to establish "mastery". Effective knowledge, especialy in the absence of the "Aha" moment of true understanding, is effective using the one day one week one month six month model of long-term potentiation (knowing). In a scolarly environment, One day is homework, one week is a short test, one month a revision test, and six month, formal examination.

Dorothy Bishop
6/10/2012 02:15:47 am

Robert - that's fine, but it's not neuroscience.

Dan Willingham link
6/11/2012 03:57:31 am

@Dorothy: I agree, there is a frequent blurring across cognitive and neuroscientific research. They are, as you point out, qualitatively different, most notably in their dependent measures and the basic ‘stuff’ of theory-building.
@Max: on the one hand, I agree with you, that neuroscientific research has had zero impact in terms of *direct* classroom applications. On the other hand, I would argue that basic science virtually never has any direct impact; applications are goal-driven, so findings from basic science must always be interpreted in light of these goals. But even once these goals are defined, neuroscience is still farther removed from classroom applications than cog research, which I’m guessing was the point you had in mind. (I talked about this in a 2007 article, which can be found here: http://www.danielwillingham.com/uploads/5/0/0/7/5007325/willingham__lloyd_2007.pdf
Btw, I’ve been a reader an admirer of your work for many years.

learn to trade forex link
8/8/2012 07:30:50 pm

First of all let me tell you, you have got a great blog. I am interested in looking for more of such topics and would like to have further information. Hope to see the next blog soon.


Comments are closed.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    RSS Feed


    Purpose

    The goal of this blog is to provide pointers to scientific findings that are applicable to education that I think ought to receive more attention.

    Archives

    July 2020
    May 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    October 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    June 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    November 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    December 2015
    July 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    January 2015
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012

    Categories

    All
    21st Century Skills
    Academic Achievement
    Academic Achievement
    Achievement Gap
    Adhd
    Aera
    Animal Subjects
    Attention
    Book Review
    Charter Schools
    Child Development
    Classroom Time
    College
    Consciousness
    Curriculum
    Data Trustworthiness
    Education Schools
    Emotion
    Equality
    Exercise
    Expertise
    Forfun
    Gaming
    Gender
    Grades
    Higher Ed
    Homework
    Instructional Materials
    Intelligence
    International Comparisons
    Interventions
    Low Achievement
    Math
    Memory
    Meta Analysis
    Meta-analysis
    Metacognition
    Morality
    Motor Skill
    Multitasking
    Music
    Neuroscience
    Obituaries
    Parents
    Perception
    Phonological Awareness
    Plagiarism
    Politics
    Poverty
    Preschool
    Principals
    Prior Knowledge
    Problem-solving
    Reading
    Research
    Science
    Self-concept
    Self Control
    Self-control
    Sleep
    Socioeconomic Status
    Spatial Skills
    Standardized Tests
    Stereotypes
    Stress
    Teacher Evaluation
    Teaching
    Technology
    Value-added
    Vocabulary
    Working Memory