Should Teachers Know the Basic Science of How Children Learn?

This quotation is from an article published by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) in the summer of 2019, part of a series called "Ask the Cognitive Scientist." The scientist in this case is Daniel T. Willingham, a cognitive scientist dedicated to passing on and explaining the results of cognitive research to school teachers.

(Willingham's website is a treasure trove of useful science: http://www.danielwillingham.com/. In particular, click on Articles.)

Scientific knowledge can influence educational practice in more than one way. Sometimes the applications are overt, as when scientific descriptions of how children learn offer new ideas for instructional methods. For example, researchers have described the learning benefits of spacing out practice¹ and some educators have sought to incorporate that finding into their classrooms.

Science can also influence education through the use of scientific methods to evaluate the effectiveness of different educational practices. Scientists have a lot of experience designing experiments and can offer useful techniques to help decide whether, for example, two reading programs differ in how much they motivate children to read independently.

*   *   *

An educator’s practice is, of course, influenced by her beliefs about what children are like. Teachers try to tune their practice to what they believe to be children’s nature, in the perfectly reasonable belief that teaching will be more successful if it accounts for the way children learn. These beliefs influence not only planning but also teachers’ in-the-moment reactions and responses when something unexpected happens in the classroom. Furthermore, beliefs influence our receptiveness to new ideas.² When a vendor offers a new product, for example, or an administrator suggests a new classroom practice, teachers evaluate it in light of their beliefs about children.

Scientific findings provide one (but obviously not the only) source of information contributing to educators’ beliefs about the nature of children. . . . Here I want to make a different point: some statements concerning children’s learning are perfectly sound scientifically but should not influence educational decisions. That includes some statements that seem like they ought to have a direct bearing on classrooms.

The article goes on to address the sometimes confusing intersection of cognitive science and teaching, the difference between empirical generalizations and theoretical statements in science, and why teachers should focus on empirical generalizations for application to their teaching.

There is also a huge AFT sidebar packed with useful information and a lot of links to other resources. It's a lot to take in at once, so bookmark this and revisit often! Ask the Cognitive Scientist: Should Teachers Know the Basic Science of How Children Learn?

1. N. Cepeda et al., “Distributed Practice in Verbal Recall Tasks: A Review and Quantitative Synthesis,” Psychological Bulletin 132, no. 3 (2006): 354–380.

2. R. Nickerson, “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises,” Review of General Psychology 2, no. 2 (1998): 175–220.