The 3 Deadly Sins in Teaching and Learning
Part 1 of 3
Before you read:
This is a post that will make you uncomfortable. Challenged. Frustrated even.
If you are a teacher who likes to think critically, use common sense and question the prevailing trends or buzz words in education, teaching and learning, this post is for you.
I also invite teachers and educators, who claim to be open minded, to go through it and reflect upon it.
And, finally, to those teachers who are trapped in the popular fluffy narrative of education and how learning “should” happen, I know you have good intentions, but I want you to challenge yourself, disagree with this and respond to it, if you may.
I understand. When we read confronting ideas that challenge our usual beliefs, we tend to react quickly. We get defensive. We get angry too. I have experienced the same.
Based on the book How Learning Happens, written by Paul Kirschner and Carl Hendrick in 2020, here’s my summary and commentary of the chapter “The Ten Deadly Sins in Education.”
“Education” is way too broad and vague a topic, therefore, I am limiting this post in the context of classroom teaching and learning only.
Here are the first three sins in this part.
Believing in the Learning Pyramid
Still enforcing the Learning Styles
Thinking that young students “think and learn” differently from previous generations
Now, in details.
Sin 1. Believing in the Learning Pyramid
What it is:
You can apparently use the Learning Pyramid to measures the effectiveness of different teaching methods. It gives you a neat framework about how students remember what they learn through different means, such as 5% from listening to a teacher, 10% from reading, 20% from audio-visual presentations, and so on. They retain 80% when they teach others. Sounds great, doesn’t it?
Why it’s a sin:
These exact percentages, however, lack solid research support, even by the institution often cited, the National Training Laboratories in Bethel, Maine, USA.
How do you know that group discussion is exactly 50% effective? How do you know lecturing is only 5% effective? Answer: You don’t.
Does this hold true in a Grade 4 Biology class? Does it also hold true in a Grade 10 English language class? How about in a History lesson?
Many teachers find solace in such pyramids (ref: Bloom’s Pyramids) because these pyramids give a sense that learning process is systematic and linear. And, these also clearly show the differences between active learning (good) and passive learning (bad).
Reality:
In real teaching and learning scenarios, an effective teacher will often align multiple approaches, based on the level of the students (ie, novice-expert continuum), the nature of the content, the type of assessment, and the purpose of learning.
The only positive side I can take away from this pyramid is that I can see this in a metaphorical way on how teaching has to incorporate several approaches to make learning meaningful. Other than that, it’s a useless figure !
Furthermore, this pyramid is terrible because it misinterprets Edgar Dale's "Cone of Experience," which illustrates the transition from abstract (eg: language) to concrete (eg: direct experience) learning methods.
Unfortunately, this pyramid is a bread and butter of a lot of Nepali teachers and educational leaders too. Here’s one in Nepali version from Siksha facebook page.
Sin 2. Still enforcing the Learning Styles
What it is:
Learning Styles theory states that students have diverse preferences in their learning methods. Some prefer visual learning through pictures, videos, and diagrams, while others like auditory learning like lectures or group discussions. One of the most common theories is the VAK model, which groups students as Visual learners, Auditory learners, and Kinesthetic learners.
Why it’s a sin:
Let me be clear: learning “preferences” do exist. BUT there’s something more sinister attached with this belief.
First, despite being massively popular among many teachers and students, there is no concrete evidence to support the existence of distinct learning styles.
Next, the sin lies in the belief and insistence that “teachers should match teaching styles with the students’ learning styles.” Also know as “messing”.
That is, if a student is a visual learner, teach that student visually. If a student is a kinesthetic learner, teach that student kinesthetically. You get the idea.
I’ve seen this irrational belief mostly in admins, unfortunately. Like in this facebook post by a popular educator in Nepal.
Rough translation of the above screenshot: Every teacher knows that students learn in different ways. Not everyone has the same learning style. But teachers do not have the answer to this question, “Why some students can’t learn? Why they are experiencing difficulties in learning?” The day every teacher find out the reasons, every student will be able to learn.
Reality:
With a bit of critical thinking and common sense, any teacher can dismantle this belief.
This perspective on how students prefer to learn, and consequently how teachers should instruct, presents three significant issues.
Firstly, learning styles are often determined based on personal preferences of the students rather than objective styles.
Secondly, personal preferences don't necessarily equate to effective learning, much like preferring unhealthy foods doesn't constitute a balanced diet.
Lastly, many so-called learning styles lack empirical evidence and categorize individuals into groups without a solid basis. Please don’t say that you will teach on the basis of how students “feel” about learning.
Even if these styles did exist, the sheer number of potential combinations would make personalized teaching impractical.
Ironically, learning styles pigeonholes students into specific categories and this can impede rather than promote effective learning. Isn’t this a lot of teachers don’t want to do? Not labelling students into specific boxes.
[Check out my earlier post on Learning Styles and why it is such a waste of time.]
Sin 3: Thinking that young students “think and learn” differently from previous generations
What it is:
Most of our students are Gen Zs. And thus,
They are tech savvy. They are highly proficient with technology, using digital devices and online resources as integral tools for learning and communication.
They have Visual and Multimedia Orientation. They prefer visual and multimedia content over text-heavy materials. Infographics, videos, and interactive visuals are often more engaging and effective for their learning.
They have global perspective. Growing up in a connected world, they often have a global perspective, which influences their thinking about cultural diversity, social issues, and global challenges.
Therefore, we’re teaching these new type of learners - these digital natives, who have unique and different ways of thinking and learning.
Is this true though?
Why it’s a sin:
However, it's important to note that Marc Prensky, who coined the term “digital natives” back in 2001, based these ideas on personal observations, not research.
Others, like Wim Veen and Ben Vrakking in 2006, also discussed a new generation of learners they called "homo zappiëns." They suggested that these learners naturally develop skills like discovery learning, collaboration, and problem-solving. But again, these claims were not backed by research. These ideas are mostly based on personal experiences and anecdotes.
So, despite the buzz about changing education to fit these new learners, there's no solid evidence that the “digital natives” have special skills that require a complete overhaul of the existing educational system.
Reality:
It’s true that, in the last 50 or 60 years, there has been a massive transformation in the world due to technology and the internet.
However, it doesn’t mean that human brain has also evolved in a similar pace. Essentially, the way humans think, perceive, filter, interpret, memorize, and apply information - this processes has not changed that significantly.
Just because our students are inundated in the ocean of information and are surrounded by technology, it doesn’t mean that their thinking process has become different, compared to the previous generation.
May be, in the near future, things will be super automatized that our students may not need to learn the alphabets or multiplication tables or even the language.
But I’m really doubtful that their thinking process will evolve (unless: we can insert pre-programmed chips into the human brains.)
Once again, I insist teachers question these beliefs.
Believing in the Learning Pyramid
Still enforcing the Learning Styles
Thinking that young students “think and learn” differently from previous generations.
FYI, I took the praxis for elementary multi subject and the separate literacy test last year, and there were still learning style questions on it. I answered “correctly” that students do have individual learning styles, so somebody needs to inform the Praxis folks.