Learning about Brain Science and Neuromyths will probably not make you a Better Teacher
The big challenge when it comes to neuroscience applied to education is translation and level of analysis
How ironic. If you know me, you're aware that I've dedicated at least 7 years or so of my life to fighting against mis(dis)information in teaching and learning. In 2017 I joined the BRAZ-TESOL Mind, Brain, and Education (MBE) SIG and in the following year, I started my master's program at the University of Bristol, where I earned my MSc degree in Psychology of Education. Since then, one of my most important missions has been to help educate educators on how the brain learns so that we can all create more effective learning experiences.
And here I am writing a text about how learning about how the brain learns might not make such a difference. To be fair, I had already thought hard about that on different occasions. The first time I can remember was at the University of Bristol in 2018 when we read John Bruer’s paper entitled Education and the Brain: A Bridge too Far (1997). The author claims right in his introduction that:
Currently, we do not know enough about brain development and neural function to link that understanding directly, in any meaningful, defensible way, to instruction and educational practice. We may never know enough to be able to do that.
Then I came across educational psychologist Daniel Willingham’s blog post: Neuroscience Applied to Education: Mostly Unimpressive. He suggests that:
For neuroscience to be useful in the classroom we've got to translate from the behavioral side to the neural side and then back again. I've called this the horizontal problem (Willingham, 2009).
My somewhat deterministic views - which I enthusiastically displayed in 2017 and 2018 - started to fade away. To be fair - again - I had already written about it a few years back. Here's some proof from my old edcrocks.com blog:
Based on the body of work from MBE, I can honestly say that I do not consider it as revolutionary as I used to think. People sometimes fall for buzzwords and “revolutionary” claims (especially when they have the terms brain-based, brain-friendly or neuro attached to them). A word of advice: be careful. Using neurojargon and promising “you’ll be able to learn anything with five easy-to-follow steps” is probably a hoax. It generally disregards years of research conducted by several peers from around the world by claiming that someone made an incredible discovery and found a secret formula to maximize learning like never before!
I do think, though, that MBE is worth learning about because it’s sober. It doesn’t have to be revolutionary to actually change many paradigms and positively impact learners. After all, teachers and policymakers have been doing the same old stuff based on tradition and are still prioritizing types of assessment that do not seem to capture the wholeness of learning and often label students as not good enough. As I mentioned before, I myself have called it revolutionary a couple of times (and it might still slip now and again), but I believe MBE to be quite responsible and cautious.
What has changed? Besides reading more papers, meeting more people who work with neuroscience and teaching, and becoming more mature, I suppose I started reflecting more about my mission - or should I call it my professional goals? Like MBE, I'm trying to become more sober and focus on critically analyzing the numerous claims people are making out there.
OK, you're probably wondering now: why shouldn't knowing more about the brain and neuromyths help us become better teachers? Well, here's an analogy I posted a while back that got a lot of attention on social media that might make things clearer:
Saying "this method is based on neuroscience" can be like saying that "cooking is based on chemistry...or physics"
Reflect on this question: If someone opened a restaurant in your neighborhood and claimed their cooking was "based on chemistry or physics" would that mean that they can cook better than experienced chefs?
Evidence-based cooking? Obviously, cooking involves a great deal of chemistry (mixing ingredients and their chemical reactions) and physics (cooking techniques, heat, pressure). But does knowing specific reactions and the physical properties of certain things always translate into better cooking? What about learning and neuroscience?
What does the research say? Studies have shown that irrelevant neuroscience – such as the names of brain structures and processes – can effectively fool non-experts into rating explanations as more reliable and evidence-based. This is how our brains operate since we are all subject to cognitive biases and the appeal of authorities – even if they just look like authorities in the subject
In fact, that last bit came from my former professor's book (Howard-Jones, 2018). His name is Paul Howard-Jones and I've certainly learned a lot from him. Paul has helped disseminate the research that looked into teachers' beliefs about brain structure and function, particularly related to education and how people learn. What we learned from that work was that, as expected I must add, most teachers don't understand how the brain works and believe in neuromyths. The first researcher to conduct this study was the acclaimed Brazilian neuroscientist Suzana Herculano-Houzel.
But like I said before: how does knowing (or not knowing) something about how the brain works translate to teaching practices? The short answer is "it doesn't". At least not necessarily. I started thinking much more about that after meeting Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath and following his work. In one of his papers, Horvath et al. (2018) argue that:
If neuromyth acceptance were correlated with teacher efficacy (as has been argued by several prominent Educational Neuroscientists), then one would reasonably expect to see a lower prevalence of neuromyth acceptance amongst internationally recognized, award-winning teachers than amongst trainee and/or non-award winning teachers. The results in this study indicate that the majority of neuromyths (13 of 15) are equally accepted amongst both groups. This suggests that there is not a clear or obvious relationship between neuromyth acceptance rates and teacher effectiveness, and that any arguments along those lines will require direct exploration of the impact of brain knowledge on teacher practice beyond that explored by any paper (including this one) to date
Deep down, I guess I've always known. I tend to tell my grad students that knowing how the engine of a car works doesn't make you a better driver because those are two different sets of knowledge - and skills. Or like Jared puts it in his excellent The Learning Blueprint course - which I’m excited to help promote in Brazil - paraphrased in excerpt belowretrieved from a University of Melbourne’s blog:
If I were to ask you what the speed of a particular car engine is, what might you answer? In truth – car engines do not move; they simply sit there and churn about – as such, speed simply does not exist within a car engine. In order to generate speed, a car engine must be combined with a number of other structures (such as axles, wheel bases, tires). This means that speed is a unique property that emerges only when one reaches the level of car.
Just like knowing what ingredients to use to make a delicious lasagna does not equal being able to actually make the lasagna - and having your guests think it tastes good. Willingham calls that the vertical problem. It means that we cannot guarantee that something found in a neuroimaging study in a lab - where variables are controlled - can translate into actual classroom practice. A bunch of variables - pretty much out of control - emerge when you put 15-25 kids together in a closed room with desks and a blackboard.
Am I saying teachers should not learn neuroeducation or anything about neuromyths? Not at all, and here comes the irony again. I offer courses on neuroeducation and deliver sessions with cool - and sexy - images of the brain. I discuss some basics about how the brain works and what that might - stress the word might here - tell us about classroom practice. I do mention that our best bet these days should be the Science of Learning. It translates a lot of what neuroscience has to say into strategies that can be more easily applied in the classroom.
But here's the catch: simply applying a list of strategies based on neuroscience - or the Science of Learning for that matter - will probably not work if teachers don't do what they do best. Teachers are, as Jared says so eloquently, the biggest experts in the classroom and they need to understand and reflect on anything coming from a neuroscientist or educational neuroscientist.
However, here's the final message I want to leave you with. I am on this path today and trying to learn more and more because, at some point in my life, my fascination and curiosity led me to the inevitable encounter with the brain. I wanted to learn more about it, how it is structured, how it works, and what I can do with that knowledge. As a teacher and teacher trainer, I can see now how that desire paid off. I don't think we need to study just the things that will have some immediate and useful application for us teachers in the classroom. I am and always will be an advocate for following our interests and curiosity to see where they lead us. Isn't that the beauty of learning?
Just remember that the silver bullet or magic formula you are looking for probably doesn't exist. And an additional teacher training program based on neuroanatomy needs to be studied and considered from multiple angles (including discussions with teachers themselves), mainly because teachers are incredibly busy.
I want to share something I wrote for the IATEFL Conference Selections 2021 that might be useful. I said that I like to think of MBE as:
a sort of Socractic Triple Filter that checks whether things are true (based on our current understanding and evidence available), good (if they have a positive impact on students’ achievement), and useful (whether teachers can apply them in the classroom.
Now, after considering Willingham’s and Horvarth’s considerations, I’d add the idea of emergence. That’s why MBE is MIND (psychology), BRAIN (neuroscience), and EDUCATION. We must not forget that any neuroscientific finding needs to be translated into classroom practice and that is not always possible or readily achievable. Willingham tells us to be patient at the end of his blog post and that’s what we should do.
I can’t forget to state the obvious. Even if we do teach teachers what might work better because it holds true across all the levels of analysis I mentioned before, what guarantee do we have that they will actually be able to do it and that it will make them better teachers?
As Paul Howard-Jones once said: Neuroscience is sexy. Anyone talking about the brain, using neurojargon, or simply sharing a shiny image of this incredible organ will most likely draw a lot of attention. One thing I can say is that I will continue to offer courses, write blog posts, books, and articles, and deliver workshops and webinars about the amazing discoveries of brain science and how it can - potentially - help educators at least find their way to something more helpful. I do, however, promise to tread with caution and review my beliefs frequently. I advise you to do the same.
Here’s an example: Jared posted something recently on LinkedIn about the whole learning styles myth that has made me rethink some of the things I wrote in the past 3 or 4 years. What if we’ve been looking at it the wrong way? What if people actually do have learning styles? Well, why don’t you click on the image below and watch for yourself?
REFERENCES
Bruer, J. T. (1997). Education and the brain: A bridge too far. Educational researcher, 26(8), 4-16.
Horvath, J. C., Donoghue, G. M., Horton, A. J., Lodge, J. M., & Hattie, J. A. (2018). On the Irrelevance of Neuromyths to Teacher Effectiveness: Comparing Neuro-Literacy Levels Amongst Award-Winning and Non-award Winning Teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 364249. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01666
Howard-Jones, P. (2018). Evolution of the Learning Brain: Or How You Got To Be So Smart... Routledge.
Willingham, D. T. (2009). Three problems in the marriage of neuroscience and education. Cortex, 45, 54-545.