I put this question to a number of research experts in different areas of the science of learning (memory, attention and metacognition) to examine how, or if, we can walk the evidence tightrope between simplicity and fidelity. Where, then, is the sweet spot for a teacher attempting to apply the principles of research without, on the one hand, propagating crude lethal mutations or, on the other hand, becoming overly entangled in the finer details? True fidelity to the research is, therefore, likely to be an unattainable ideal. We have to consider a huge range of interconnecting variables concurrently every time we plan any activity, and this reduces our ability to quantify the effect of any single change. Our classrooms are uncontrolled and noisy (in the statistical sense of being highly variable, though sometimes just plain noisy, too). Research studies have only a singular aim, or a very limited number of aims, allowing them to isolate the specific effects of one variable. For example, much of the cognitive psychology research into learning has been conducted in environments that are highly controlled, such as dark or bare laboratory rooms, using “controlled” stimuli, such as nonsense syllables, which bear little resemblance to the context of learning in school environments.Įven studies that have been more “ecologically valid” - as psychologists term settings or tasks that more closely resemble how the skills being studied occur in real life - will often use samples of participants (such as college students) who are very different from the pupils in our everyday classrooms.īut suppose we find research that jumps all these hurdles? Then we have a further problem. On the other hand, entirely faithful applications of research may not be practically possible, or desirable, in a complex school environment. Under such circumstances, effective ideas and good intentions can become twisted into practices that are, at best, ineffective and, at worst, harmful to student progress.īecoming evidence informed requires well-meaning teachers to walk a tightrope between two suboptimal outcomes Such instances are often termed “lethal mutations” and seem especially likely to occur when schools or trusts attempt to condense extensive research findings into a small number of codified “best practice” prescriptions. On the one hand, if research is interpreted too simply, crude interventions based on poorly understood mechanisms can cause more problems than they solve. However, becoming evidence informed is not without its challenges and requires well-meaning teachers to walk a tightrope between two suboptimal outcomes. Quite right, too, you might say, and I would agree. In other words: teachers should be aware of how to translate the results of research into successful learning and be utilising these insights in their own practice. ![]() Increasingly, “knowing the path” in teaching seems to involve being “evidence informed”. ![]() As we fight our individual battles to make the world a better place, we see only too well that there is a gap between knowing, in theory, what is the right thing to do and how we make that work in practice. It’s a quote that will resonate with many teachers. In the film The Matrix, Morpheus tells eventual-saviour-of-the-world Neo: “Sooner or later, you’re going to realise, just as I did, that there’s a difference between knowing the path and walking the path.” I’m aware that starting an article with a film reference is a bit of a cliché, but please bear with me.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |