Teaching Myths

8/4/2019 Teaching Myths

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/teaching-myths 1/17

FrederickEducationReform.com

Myths about Teaching and Learning

That Parents and Teachers Ought To Know



Frederick County has published a document called “Proven

Instructional Practices for Education That Is Multicultural” 1

Educators in Frederick and elsewhere have encouragedthese approaches for all children, not just for students withminority racial and ethnic backgrounds or for teachingmulticultural content. Unfortunately, some of thesesupposedly “proven practices” are actually fads that reflect amisunderstanding of the research on learning.

This briefing explains the myths and realities of the trendypractices mentioned in this document, presents sound

principles of instruction, and suggests how FCPS canimprove its approach to teaching.

So, let’s begin! This presentation presents a summary for a general audience.We encourage teachers to read the footnotes we cite so that important caveatsaren’t missed. Many of the individual citations could be turned into an entire

professional development course, and we hope FCPS will consider doing that.

Background

1This document is located at http://www.fcpsteach.org/docs/ETMInstPrac.pdf

http://www.fcpsteach.org/docs/ETMInstPrac.pdf

http://www.fcpsteach.org/docs/ETMInstPrac.pdf



Myth: Students have different learning styles and lessons

designed with these styles in mind will be more effective.Those styles (sometimes called modalities) include visual,kinesthetic, and auditory.

Reality: There is no empirical evidence for learning styles.Studies that attempted to identify students’ learning styles and

taught students in that style found little difference inachievement.1 The myth of learning styles has been repeatedunder different names (such as “global” and “analytical” learners2) for over 40 years without proof.

Correct Teaching Principle: Students may differ in their

learning preferences, but trying to tailor instruction to these preferences does not provide an advantage. Teachers should teach in the modality that is best for the content itself and not worry about learning styles. Doing otherwise may actually shortchange some students.3

Learning Styles

1http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/summer2005/cogsci.htm,

2http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/fall99/DiffStrokes.pdf, 3http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/summer2005/cogscisb.htm



Myth:There are separate kinds of intelligence such as linguistic,

loco-mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal,and so on, and lessons that appeal to these different intelligences willbe more effective.

Reality: Mainstream researchers regard intelligence as hierarchical(meaning that students will tend to score better in some areas than

others), but closely related to general intelligence (meaning that astudent’s scores across all areas will tend to correlate.)1 MI theory isnot well regarded among mainstream psychologists and has not beentested2. Even Howard Gardner, who originated the theory, did notintend it to be a blueprint for teaching, and said he was uneasy aboutthe way his theory has been used in schools.3

Correct Teaching Principle: Teachers should not concernthemselves with appealing to “multiple intelligences”. Instead, they should focus on a logical sequence of instruction that builds onstudents’ prior skills.4

Multiple Intelligences

1http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/3261311.html, 2http://vocationalpsychology.com/essay_10_gardner.htm,

3http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,5500,1495588,00.html, 4http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/fall99/DiffStrokes.pdf



Myth: Students will learn best if learning is “authentic” in the sensethat it deals with real world problems and applications. Under thistheory, it would be better to learn about pollution in the context of doing a project for a science fair than learning it apart from a specificapplication.

Reality: Real world problems are often ineffective for initial teachingbecause they have too many features that can cause misconceptions.

They can lead to overly specific learning that does not transfer to newsituations. In one famous experiment, a few minutes of abstractinstruction enabled novices to learn what it took experts years todiscover through real world experience.1

Correct Teaching Principle: When developing activities and

practice problems, teachers should focus on the cognitive processesthey evoke, not their real-world trappings. Teacher-led instruction isoften more efficient, effective, and generalizable than learning throughexperiences and projects. Nearly all skills can be successfully decomposed into smaller skills that can be taught and mastered independently and then combined to teach the larger, more

complicated skill.

“Authentic” Learning

1http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/papers/misapplied.html



Myth: FCPS’ document claims that “Teachers shoulddevelop programs and techniques that build on the complexfunctioning of programs and patterns in the human brain.”

Reality: Trying to derive pedagogical strategies fromneuroscience is, at this point, something akin to quackery

according to mainstream neurologists and cognitivescientists. Said one expert: “There really is no researchthat links learning strategies or classroom methods tochanges in brain structure…Educators are making a very bigmistake by wasting their time on 'brain-based' curricula” 1,2,3

Correct Teaching Principle: Teachers should employ strategies that are supported by mainstream research that have been replicated over a long period of time, and should avoid the “brain-based” fads.

Brain-Compatible Instruction

1http://teachers.net/gazette/APR01/strauss.html, 2http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/fall2006/cogsci.htm,3http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbru9905.htm



Constructivism is so misunderstood that we’ll need several slides to pick apart what FCPS said about it.

Myth: FCPS wrote, “Constructivism is based on the belief that learners createtheir own knowledge structures rather than merely receiving them fromothers.”

Reality: It is true that learning is an active process, but FCPS’ description ismisleading since it implies that teacher-led instruction is not desirable. Actually,

students learn more in classes where teachers spend much of their timeteaching or supervising students.2 As one expert explains, “There is very littlepositive evidence for discovery learning and it is often inferior. In particularly, itmay be costly in time, and when the search is lengthy or unsuccessful,motivation commonly flags.” 1

Correct Teaching Principle:. Teachers should spend much of their time

directly instructing, guiding, or supervising students, and should not bereluctant to build up students’ factual knowledge. The initial stages of learninginvolve acquiring “inflexible knowledge”, which is different from “rotememorization”. Inflexible knowledge is the foundation for later expertise and an important part of the learning process. Flexible knowledge and understanding will develop as students acquire more knowledge, see moreexamples, and practice more.3

Constructivism (Part I)

1http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/papers/misapplied.html, 2http://idea.uoregon.edu/~ncite/documents/techrep/tech06.html

3http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/winter2002/CogSci.html



Myth: FCPS wrote, “For effective learning to occur for students,teachers must orient their instruction to assist students withconnecting new learning to the students’ prior knowledge. The learnerbecomes engaged with manipulatives and hands-on problem solving.”

Reality: Teachers do need to connect learning to students’ priorknowledge, though doing this is not unique to a constructivist

approach; traditional approaches encourage it as well. Constructivismis a theory of how students learn, not how they should be instructed.Educators often misinterpret the theory to imply that constructivismmeans a hands-on approach.

Correct Teaching Principle: Both manipulatives and hands-on

problem solving may be appropriate in some situations, but should not be done for the sake of being “constructivist”. There is little evidencethat students who are taught according to constructivist principleshave superior outcomes. In fact, most evidence shows that structured, teacher-led approaches are generally better for all students, and especially beneficial for low income students.1

Constructivism (Part II)

1http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/docLib/200702051_challenge.pdf



So what drives these beliefs?

Most education administrators and education schools believe in anaturalistic or romantic approach to learning. Here is how oneexpert described the roots of this belief: “The dominance of thisview can be traced back to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who glorified thenatural at the expense of the man-made, and argued that education

should not be structured but should emerge from the naturalinclinations of the child. German educators developed kindergartensbased on the notion of natural learning. This romantic notion of learning has become doctrinal in many schools of education andchild-development centers, and has closed the minds of manyexperts to actual research findings about effective approaches to

educating children. This is a classic case of an immature profession,one that lacks a solid scientific base and has less respect forevidence than for opinion and ideology.” 1

Confusing Beliefs with Evidence

1http://www.edexcellence.net/institute/publication/publication.cfm?id=46



So why do these beliefs persist if they aren’t based on evidence?

All teaching candidates must attend education schools to obtain certification,which often promote ineffective practices. Teacher “professional organizations” also encourage these ideas and regard their use as a sign of being cutting edge.This combination of legal mandates and concern for professional standing make itunlikely that teachers or administrators will consider mainstream research fromthose outside the education establishment, and likely they will adopt themisleading ideas promoted by education insiders.

The general public assumes that the high-sounding words education schools useto dress up their unproven techniques are an indication of sophistication. Aseducation professor Dr. Martin Kozloff explains…

In general, ed school documents appear designed to create and sustain an illusion of democraticvalues, technical expertise (in curriculum design and teaching), and scholarship that is every bit asdeep and rigorous as scholarship in other fields…The most frequent terms are construction (as in

"construction of knowledge")…inquiry (as in "inquiry-based learning"), relevant (as in "relevant

contexts"), developmental (as in "developmentally appropriate practice")… authentic (as in "authenticcontext")…child centered (as in "classrooms should be child centered"), and active learning…These

words are seldom defined operationally. That is, ed schools rarely say exactly what a person does when he or she reflects; or what, exactly, makes a practice developmentally appropriate...

The most telling feature of ed school documents is the virtual absence of words that might be

expected of organizations that train teachers. Words such as accuracy, fluency, generalization,practice, mastery, logic, sequence, instructional format, skill, effort, persistence, retention, knowledgesystem, analysis, test, and validate are rare—even in course syllabi.1


1http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/pageants.htm (slightly edited for brevity and clarity; boldface is as it was in the original)



Does FCPS suffer from a lack of respect for research?

Unfortunately, it seems that way. For example, the FCPSguide to teaching science encourages constructivism anddoesn’t mention research-based approaches.1

In addition to the “Proven Instructional Practices for

Education That Is Multicultural” document, FCPS produced adocument called “Rules for Mathematics” that actuallyadmitted to a disregard for research:

“Rules for computation can be divided into two types, Rules of Invention and Rules of Convention. (Note: these are my words

and not to be found in any research to my knowledge)” 2

In other professions, such as medicine, not relying onresearch would be considered malpractice, but in educationsuch speculation is commonplace.


1http://www.fcpsteach.org/docs/SciGdG1r.pdf, 2http://www.fcpsteach.org/docs/Rules%20in%20Mathematics.doc



Where can teachers turn for reliable advice?

In addition to sources already cited, the following books should be a part of every teacher’s repertoire:

The Academic Achievement Challenge: What Really Works in the Classroom

By Jeanne Chall One of the nation’s foremost scholars examines the evidence behind a

wide variety of approaches, and shows how teacher-led approachesusually lead to better outcomes. She explains the underlying appeal of many of the fads.

Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reformsby Diane RavitchThe nation’s most eminent historian of education traces the origins of thefads and their effect on American education, and how the same basicfads have been repeated over and over under different names for the last100 years.

Solid Research on Pedagogy



What about subject-specific research?

Here are a few sources arranged by subject:

Reading and English“Brief Instruction in Comprehension Strategies Is Useful” -- http://aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/winter06-07/CogSci.pdf

“How Knowledge Helps” -- http://www.readingrockets.org/article/12443

Math and Science “The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: effects of direct instruction and discovery learning” --http://www.psy.cmu.edu/faculty/klahr/KlahrNigam.2-col.pdf

"Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching“ -- http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/kirschner_Sweller_Clark.pdf ’

“Improving Mathematics and Science Education:A Longitudinal Investigation of the Relationship Between Reform-OrientedInstruction and Student Achievement”

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG480.pdf

History and Social Studies“Where Did Social Studies Go Wrong?”

http://www.edexcellence.net/institute/publication/publication.cfm?id=317&pubsubid=909


http://aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/winter06-07/CogSci.pdf

http://www.readingrockets.org/article/12443

http://www.psy.cmu.edu/faculty/klahr/KlahrNigam.2-col.pdf

http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/kirschner_Sweller_Clark.pdf





http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/kirschner_Sweller_Clark.pdf












What about general teaching information?

Here are a few more sources:

Research Synthesis on Effective Teaching Principles and the Design of Quality Tools for Educators

http://idea.uoregon.edu/~ncite/documents/techrep/tech05.pdf

Practices Makes Perfect, But Only If You Practice Beyond the Point of Perfectionhttp://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/spring2004/cogsci.html

Massed vs. Distributed Practice

http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/summer2002/askcognitivescientist.html

Students Remember What They Think About

http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/summer2003/cogsci.html

Why Students Think They Understand When They Don’t




http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/spring2004/cogsci.html

















So how can FCPS improve its teaching techniques?

Insist that all pedagogy guides include research-based approaches andavoid fads and speculation.

To address the misconceptions teachers often get from education schools,provide teachers with training opportunities to learn what mainstreamresearch says about teaching and learning.

Pilot approaches to teaching specific content before encouraging their useacross the entire system, and base these decisions on student achievement

data, not on teachers’ or administrators’ beliefs, impressions, or feelings.

Recognize that there is a difference between a “theory of learning” and a “theory of instruction”:

“Theory of Learning” – Focuses on theories about the internal learning

processes of students and tries to translate this into instructionaltechniques.

“Theory of Instruction” – Focuses on the nuts and bolts of whatteachers actually do to teach specific content, which is an externalprocess that can be replicated.

Actions Toward Improvement



To move forward, FCPS should focus on systematically developing and refining instruction based on evidence of what techniques are most effective to teach specific content.

FCPS should try to answer practical questions:

What types of examples will most clearly and efficiently result instudents learning the content? What specific wording should teachers use when explaining the content?

What types of misconceptions do students commonly have and how can we design instruction to avoid that confusion?

How much practice do students need to learn the content? How caninstruction be designed to provide sufficient practice?

What specific sequences of lessons lead to the best results?

Only after examining the results from working with actual children willFCPS be able to create a polished set of lessons plans that can bereplicated across the system. A general theory of instruction can then bederived by generalizing the common features of the effective lessons. A

good theory should be a theory in the scientific sense: It should bebased on provable hypotheses that can be validated and replicated.

A Practical Approach



Fortunately, such a theory already exists and could be used as a

starting point for FCPS to refine and conduct further research.

The “Theory of Instruction” 1 by Engelmann and Carnine presents acomprehensive theory along with strategies for designing instructionfor just about anything. This theory is based on decades of evidenceand experience working with actual children.

Regardless of its starting point, FCPS has an opportunity to helpeducation mature as a profession and become as respected asmedicine and engineering are. To do this, the school system mustmake evidence and research part and parcel of its schoolimprovement efforts.

We hope that FCPS will ensure that our students receive solid instruction based on proven practices and avoid fads that leavechildren behind. We hope this presentation will start a discussionabout how this can be done.

A Practical Approach

1http://tinyurl.com/ywlb22

Documents

Teaching Myths