Real Talk
Ask any teacher, and she will tell you that one thing you can count on in education is that things are always changing. What was cutting-edge now, will be replaced by a new (or rebranded) curriculum or technique in another year or two. Tried and true practices are tweaked ever so slightly and given new names, and things teachers have been doing for years are marketed and sold to us as the next new thing! And while the constant changes can be exhausting and frustrating, it isn’t actually true that things are always changing. In fact, some faulty ideas and practices stubbornly persist even as good ones go by the wayside. Here are a few education myths that need to die.
Myth #1: Everyone has a specific learning style.
Learning styles are not a thing. I realize that in some circles those are fighting words, but I’ll say it again. LEARNING STYLES DO NOT EXIST. If that sounds absurd, it’s because the idea of learning styles has been widely accepted for decades–and not just by educators.
Studies show that 90% of people believe that they learn best when taught according to their predominant learning style. This concept, the idea that each of us is primarily a visual, auditory, or kinesthetic learner, originated in the 1960s, but it gained momentum in the ‘80s and ‘90s–probably because of the self-esteem movement of the time and its emphasis that everyone is special. Another obvious explanation for the persistence of this myth is that it has sparked a marketing bonanza! Since the 1980s an entire industry sprung to life to create games, toys, curricula, and workshops all claiming to help teachers determine and cater to student learning styles.
The problem is that numerous studies debunk the learning styles myth. The American Psychological Association even goes so far as to warn that education myths about learning styles may be detrimental to students and educators.
Myth #2: Learning should always be active and engaging.
For years this myth has encouraged teachers to make their classrooms places of lively interaction and collaborative thinking. That’s a good thing–unless you are an introvert. For these students, a quiet, introspective environment might be more conducive to learning. In fact, it makes sense that, regardless of personality type or personal preference, it’s best to teach some lessons actively and interactively while we teach others reflectively and personally.
But as with so many things in education, we have taken an all-in approach to active learning, leaving little space (physical or mental) for students to think quietly or experience mental downtime during the school day.
Myth #3: Critical thinking is the most important thing.
As with learning styles, critical thinking is big business, inspiring countless products: toys, games, puzzles, and of course curricula, all promising to promote and enhance critical thinking. Yet research shows that these products have not produced a lasting positive effect on students’ ability to think critically or logically and that it is very difficult for students to apply critical thinking skills across subjects.
Based on his study of research surrounding critical thinking, Daniel Willingham, professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, concludes that the scientific consensus is that content knowledge is crucial. He asserts that the best approach is to explicitly teach specific skills. In other words, being able to solve a logic puzzle will not necessarily help a student solve a complex math or chemistry problem, particularly if he hasn’t learned his math facts.
Modern education tends to take an all-or-nothing approach to education trends; when critical thinking became an educational buzzword, things like explicit teaching and rote memorization quickly fell from favor. This means teachers often ask students to solve problems or think or write critically about subjects they know little about and without the basic skills necessary to do so.
Myth #4: Education means the same thing everywhere.
I have a friend who is a college professor. He self-effacingly jokes that where he comes, “higher education” is for people who can’t fix their own vehicles. While he might have a PhD, that’s not as impressive to the people he grew up with as being able to replace an alternator. He has a point. In his rural farm community, practical, hands-on skills are of far more value than familiarity with the writings of Aristotle.
This isn’t to say that farm kids don’t need to read great works of literature or that urban students can’t benefit from practical skills. But in their book 50 Myths and Lies That Threaten America’s Public Schools (affiliate link), authors David C. Berliner and Gene V. Glass point to significant evidence that shows that just because a program is successful in one school does not mean it will be equally successful in a different school with a different student population. When it comes to education, the demographics of a community as well as the specific needs of the students should play an important (although not exclusive) role in determining curriculum and specific policies.
Not every change in educational practices is bad, and not everything from the past is worth hanging on to. But when it comes to the education of children, policies should not be driven by marketing and the perpetuation of harmful myths.
