Why Learning Myths Matter
Jonathan Firth's Memory & Metacognition Updates #130
Over the last couple of updates, I’ve shared some thoughts on the ‘learning styles myth’. So, what does all of this tell us about metacognition in general?
To my mind, the issue is not just that specific myths about how people learn should be discouraged. The fact that they’re so prevalent in the first place also indicates an issue with the accuracy of how people think about thinking (and learning).
In short, we don’t seem to have an intuitive insight into how learning works, even when it comes to our own learning or that of our classes.
This is a quote that I often share with students:
“…the fact people can be sorted based on their self-reported impressions about what works for them does not make them right about what works for them. One can measure opinions and call them “styles” or anything else you want to call them; the important question is whether doing so provides any predictive leverage.”
(Pashler et al., 2015, p. 123).
The idea that people can have strong but inaccurate views on ‘what works’ is food for thought, and should cause us to be wary, even as experienced educators, to go with our intuitive judgements.
Empirical evidence
An obvious alternative is to proceed in an evidence-based way, using empirical evidence to plan for learning.
Indeed, this is what many of my memory and metacognition updates are based on. Why, for example, do I recommend applying retrieval practice or the spacing effect? The reason is that a strong body of research suggests that these strategies are helpful to learning in a range of contexts.
Again, this is not always obvious. Just as most people commonly accept neuromyths such as learning styles, they often reject or avoid desirable difficulties like retrieval and spacing (see update #99). This shows that intuitive judgement is an unreliable way to proceed.
Through engaging with the evidence, I’ve become wary of my own judgement too, and now try to think with the evidence rather than following more automatic assumptions.
If evidence is more helpful than intuitive judgement, this suggests that educators should, where possible, become more research engaged if they are to make smart judgements about pedagogy, assessment, curriculum and so forth.
Perhaps it also points to a role for teachers engaging in research of their own – something that has become popular in recent years.
I am certainly in favour of well-conducted practitioner action research. However, I have a few concerns, too. If action research is flawed, it could reproduce the same biased intuitive assumptions that I mentioned above, with educators seeing what they want to see.
I’ll say more about the promise and pitfalls of practitioner research in the next update. In the meantime, here is the link to a book I wrote a few years ago on teacher research engagement:
Firth, J. (2019). The teacher’s guide to research. Routledge.
All the best for the coming week,
Jonathan
Last time: More on The Learning Styles Myth – Classroom Implications
I hope you are enjoying Memory and Metacognition Updates. Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work – and consider sharing it with colleagues!! Thank you!
Please note that my slides and similar materials are shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license. This means you can use or adapt them with attribution for non-commercial purposes. If you wish to use my materials for other purposes, feel free to get in touch.