Education Myths Debunked (I)

In the last couple of weeks, a series of unrelated articles seem to debunk some cherished myths in primary and secondary education. These articles ought to lead us to ask – with fresh insights – the essential question: how do we make our students learn?

The first article comes from the New York Times and discusses the fact that introducing technologies in the classroom does not necessarily lead to improved scores (“In Classroom of Future, Stagnant Scores”). The second article, from NPR, argues that the idea of different kinds of learning (visual, auditory, etc.) is not supported by research (“Think You’re An Auditory Or Visual Learner? Scientists Say It’s Unlikely“). Finally, the third article, also in the New York Times (“School Curriculum Falls Short on Bigger Lessons”), discusses the difference between hard work and being “smart”.

The first two articles, although they address two different subjects (perhaps!) –  technology in the classroom and learning styles – both point to a very important conclusion: there are fads in education just like in fashion. The important thing is to use research based evidence and not to give in to these fads.

For example, there are no randomized, controlled studies which demonstrate that introducing such things as Smart Boards, video or Power Point in the classroom will lead to improved student performance. I am aware that we have to be careful in our conclusions: technology indeed may not enhance learning, but it is also possible that we did not yet develop adequate methods of assessing the contribution of technology (per se) in learning. Also, a third possibility is that we have not yet developed the lesson plans, assessments and/or textbooks that use technology in the “right” way – hence we see no progress in student scores.

It may also be that different technologies lend themselves better to different educational areas. Both AP Stats and AP Calc would be much “poorer” courses without graphing calculators. In Stats there is a current to teach the course (at least the inference part) through randomization methods – for this, computer software such as Minitab or Fathom is almost a necessity.

The trick seems to be to stay on the right side of learning and not to stray in the area of entertainment. Faced with “extra” time on a computer, students will easily gravitate towards Solitaire and video games. My hypothesis is that, unlike the majority of teachers, our students have come into visual media via entertainment: video games, movies, etc. Moving images entered our students’ DNA as a form of perpetual motion amusement. In my opinion, it is hard to have these students concentrate on the learning experience and not to be distracted. Furthermore, I think it is hard for these students to extract a learning experience from the visual presentation – in other words, synthesis of learning from visual imagery is difficult for those who have grown up with visual imagery as entertainment.

To extract such a synthesis a lesson would have to be carefully planned, perhaps interspersed with “what if?“ and “what do you conclude?” questions, with the answers written down. From what I have seen around me, most teachers either do not have the talent or (more likely) the time to create a truly learning experience from visual imagery. Most often, it’s “here’s the video” with little student participation and experimentation and, more importantly, little guidance towards a synthesis.


4 responses to “Education Myths Debunked (I)

  1. I think that the persistent problem with these articles is the fact that standardized tests are used as signs of progress without any real analysis about whether these are the best tools. Especially when it comes to evaluating the impact of new technologies, why should old standard measures be accurate representations of growth inspired by new approaches?

    • That’s right – that is one of the things I mentioned: we don’t have good assessments for the impact of technology. Overall, especially if we are interested in critical thinking, we don’t have good assessments, period. It would be interesting to have a large study that deals with private schools, those that do not use state tests. How do they see the impact of technology? My hunch is that the most important aspect in this technology discussion is to structure lesson plans very carefully so the technology can have the impact it is capable of.

  2. Dean
    You have pinpointed another one of the problems here. Unless teachers have some training – or some innate sense – of how to USE technology then there is no reason to expect that it will turn into improved performance. I think a simpler question is this: Do we see improved engagement in the students when technology is introduced in the classroom? I think that the answer is usually yes here.

    • Jim,
      There is no doubt that students get excited by having technology available to them and that they are more engaged. I guess it comes down to (1) a cost-benefit analysis – do we get sufficiently greater learning to justify the cost and (2) what are the long term effects of “going heavy” on technology? Will a different style of teaching be necessary? What kind of learning will benefit from technology? What kind (if any) will suffer? We are just at the beginning and while I am all for exploration, I just don’t think we should declare it’s a panacea for what ails our educational system.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s