Pseudo-science of teaching.

Teaching is full of myths and misconceptions. Why is that so? I suppose that teachers are desperate to explore new strategies that might work for their students and improve their learning. Any good-sounding ideas seem to get adopted by schools. There also does not seem to be the same sort of rigour with evidence as it happens in medicine for example.

And thus the myths proliferated and multiply as the time goes. Some might think that these are wholly innocent. But what effectively happens is that precious time is taken away from learners. Spending your energy on chasing the newest fad in education instead of concentrating on teaching is never productive. This is why it is so crucial why it is so important to distinguish science from pseudo-science in teaching. The demand on teachers' time makes is really hard to reconcile with doing proper research into what techniques have a proper scientific grounding. This is why blogs such as Evidence into Practice are so helpful. There are also many books and articles which are freely available that can extend your knowledge. I believe it is absolutely necessary to dedicate some time to become a more informed practitioner.

Here are a few common myths:

1. Learning styles: visual, auditory, kinaesthetic (VAK), we all heard it. This is simply not  thing. There is no scientific basis for this theory. Daniel Willingham explains this really well in the video below. So instead of adjusting the way of delivery to the supposed "style" of the pupil, present the material in the most appropriate mode.

2. We remember only 5% of a lecture, 10% of what we read, 20% of what we see and hear and 75% of what we do: which supposedly means that the most effective way of teaching is experiential. This is often presented as a pyramid like the one below:

source: washingtonpost.com

Lots of nonsense. As Lalley and Miller (2007) point out in The Learning Pyramid: Does it point teachers in the right direction?:

The research reviewed here demonstrates that use of each of the methods identified by the pyramid resulted in retention, with none being consistently superior to the others and all being effective in certain contexts. A paramount concern, given conventional wisdom and the research cited, is the effectiveness and importance of reading and direct instruction, which in many ways are undermined by their positions on the pyramid. Reading is not only an effective teaching/learning method, it is also the main foundation for becoming a “life-long learner”.”

 Very good article debunking this myth can be found here.

3. Brain gym: I'm not sure where to start with this one, really. If you haven't heard of this one yet, brain gym is  a set of movement activities such as "crawling, drawing, tracing symbols in the air, yawning, and drinking water" (Hyatt, 2007)One of the organisations providing brain gym training claims that it can influence and improve:

• Concentration and Focus
• Memory
• Academics: reading, writing, math, test taking
• Physical coordination
• Relationships
• Self-responsibility
• Organization skills
• Attitude

Miracle cure to all the problems, isn't it? We should be surprised that we are not all going around rubbing our stomachs and patting our heads. Yet there is no scientific evidence of any of the claimed benefits. Of course, physical exercise is a healthy habit and we should encourage children to get active, but making them do ridiculous manoeuvers with their body is not a good idea. A little bit of exercises in the middle of a Wednesday afternoon lesson to wake everyone up- yes; brain gym - absolutely not.

Wanting to improve your practice is absolutely crucial both for your professional development and, more importantly, for the improvement of pupil progress. But we need to be weary of fancy fads. Sometimes the simplest ideas are the best. And whatever you try, always think: does it make any sense? Is there any evidence behind it?