Interesting. So, educable=able to learn new things or apply knowledge in new situations=general intelligence.
I don't much like the word "gadget" here - she also calls them "organs of thought," but I don't much like that either; I would just call them cognitive abilities that you can become skillful at. I would say cognitive architecture is rooted in genetics but developed by social interactions.
In your Education Next article where you review Heyes' book, you say that teaching programs are not interested in teaching the cognitive science of learning. That is so weird to me. To me, cognitive science is what pedagogy is all about. (But then, I must admit, most of my education profs were the worst teachers I ever had!?!) But when I was in college in the early 70's, Bruner was in and Skinner was out, and we learned things (mostly from the textbook!) like the cognitive principles you have on your Deans for Impact Science of Learning list, which were very helpful to me. The first 4 groups of principles on your list I would say are brain-based much more than culturally based. The ones in #5, on motivation, are more in the affective domain, which are still cognitive principles and very important for learning, but having more to do with the mind rather than just the brain, and more social-dependent.
The only thing on the list I don't agree with is "Students do not have different 'learning styles.'" I agree that it's not useful to give a survey and try to label the student and only teach them one way, but from 30 years of teaching high school and from observing my own kids, I certainly believe learning styles or modes exist, and they shouldn't be ignored.
My one daughter learned easiest from demonstrations. The other one learned easiest auditorally from lecture. They could learn other ways, but that was the easiest for them. Not that it isn't good to practice learning using the modes you aren't strongest in. I learn best by reading the theory behind something. My son is a tactile/kinesthetic learner. He's also dyslexic and on the autism spectrum, so he had a lot of trouble processing input, and needed time to figure out things in his own way. I had students who processed things better if they said them out loud in their own words, so I gave them opportunities to do that.
I think the best way to teach is to be sure to use the cognitive principles, like the ones on your list, that are known to work with most if not all students, but to use all the different modes possible for presenting and practicing concepts and skills. This catches what works best for each student, while giving them all extra contact and practice in a different way, which is better than repetition just one way. You also have to observe the students and see where they're having problems and try to figure out why and try different things. The other two things you have to keep in mind are (1) the teacher has to be sure they're not subconsciously assuming all students will learn best the way the particular teacher learns best and (2) not everything to be taught should be taught in the same way; sometimes the nature of the material or skill lends itself better to certain modalities.
-- I don't love "gadget" either, but Heyes (and I) argue the opposite, that most of our cognitive architecture is shaped culturally, and I think science is increasingly trending toward our view
-- Glad to know you found The Science of Learning useful!
-- I can only say re learning styles that it's been studied rigorously and it does not work generally (http://www.danielwillingham.com/learning-styles-faq.html); there's a subtle different between this and using different modes to present content, which you rightfully state is good pedagogical practice
-- I too find it mystifying that schools of ed resist cog-sci (I started Deans for Impact to change this!)
-- And fully agree that teaching improves when cognitive principles are well understood!
Just to clarify, I think all of us have genetic general intelligence. That's the foundation. I think AI doesn't have that. AI people want to act like computers are organic and can grow themselves and "learn," change their architecture, and teach themselves. They use words like "computational" to refer to people's brains so we think computers are like brains, if not minds. My brain is not a "programmable device that stores, retrieves, and processes data." It does MUCH more than that. I am not a robot.
There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that brains are built on a genetic foundation of neurons and synapses. But these are living cells. Everyone has general intelligence and can learn new things. We can learn new things from our own experience, but we can learn faster and better with social interaction, and social interaction can motivate us more. We each have some areas where we have more particular innate ability. But we can all learn things that we're not as innately good at, and abilities and the ability to learn does not have anything to do with phenotypes.
Back in the 70's and 80's teaching was so exciting because we had cognitive learning principles and everything was trending towards teaching being more student-centered instead of one-size-fits-all, and teachers having more professional autonomy, and understanding and coming up with innovative teaching methods. We just needed time to process all this and apply different methods to where they worked best. But then that all shut down starting in the 90's. Economists started bashing education and saying we keep "throwing money at it" with no result, and bashing teachers and saying they were all terrible and there's no science to it. But that was all because business people wanted to declare public education a failure so they could come in and fill their pockets with taxpayer money, taking over schools when they had no idea how people learn.
Here are my crazy ideas for teacher preparation. I figure they must be crazy because they don't seem to occur to anyone else. Just for high school, because that's what I've always taught. Though I think elementary, PK-8, should be a mix of Montessori, Reggio Emilia, and Waldorf.
Teacher Preparation Program for High School Teaching:
*Strong foundation in psychology and sociology; at least three classes each, including 101, besides required psychology courses.
Required Courses:
*Cognitive Psychology, Adolescent Psychology.
*If not demonstrably bilingual, students need 101 and 102 of any language other than English (or four years of any foreign languages in high school, at any level; three years of any foreign languages at any level exempts you from 101 in a language you’ve studied) in order to have some idea of what obstacles ELL students face, to be able to relate to them.
*Two semester courses on teaching students with learning disabilities.
*Major in content area.
*One semester course in classroom management.
*One semester course in writing lesson plans.
*One semester course in using technology in the classroom.
*Two semesters of clinicals/internships where the teacher candidate works as an unpaid Para in a classroom of their content area. The teacher candidate receives semester credit but tuition is waived except for a small general fee. This way students gain valuable experience through a work-related relationship as a colleague, learning as much as in a traditional field experience/student teaching program, but without the unnecessary performative stress before they’re ready for it; and, more teachers have paras (all need them). Win-win.
There should not be a grade requirement to enter the program, but teacher candidates must have no grade lower than a C in Required Courses and a B average in content area in order to complete the program. Upon completion of the program, teacher candidates should be automatically awarded a Master’s degree and a teaching license.
Interesting. So, educable=able to learn new things or apply knowledge in new situations=general intelligence.
I don't much like the word "gadget" here - she also calls them "organs of thought," but I don't much like that either; I would just call them cognitive abilities that you can become skillful at. I would say cognitive architecture is rooted in genetics but developed by social interactions.
In your Education Next article where you review Heyes' book, you say that teaching programs are not interested in teaching the cognitive science of learning. That is so weird to me. To me, cognitive science is what pedagogy is all about. (But then, I must admit, most of my education profs were the worst teachers I ever had!?!) But when I was in college in the early 70's, Bruner was in and Skinner was out, and we learned things (mostly from the textbook!) like the cognitive principles you have on your Deans for Impact Science of Learning list, which were very helpful to me. The first 4 groups of principles on your list I would say are brain-based much more than culturally based. The ones in #5, on motivation, are more in the affective domain, which are still cognitive principles and very important for learning, but having more to do with the mind rather than just the brain, and more social-dependent.
The only thing on the list I don't agree with is "Students do not have different 'learning styles.'" I agree that it's not useful to give a survey and try to label the student and only teach them one way, but from 30 years of teaching high school and from observing my own kids, I certainly believe learning styles or modes exist, and they shouldn't be ignored.
My one daughter learned easiest from demonstrations. The other one learned easiest auditorally from lecture. They could learn other ways, but that was the easiest for them. Not that it isn't good to practice learning using the modes you aren't strongest in. I learn best by reading the theory behind something. My son is a tactile/kinesthetic learner. He's also dyslexic and on the autism spectrum, so he had a lot of trouble processing input, and needed time to figure out things in his own way. I had students who processed things better if they said them out loud in their own words, so I gave them opportunities to do that.
I think the best way to teach is to be sure to use the cognitive principles, like the ones on your list, that are known to work with most if not all students, but to use all the different modes possible for presenting and practicing concepts and skills. This catches what works best for each student, while giving them all extra contact and practice in a different way, which is better than repetition just one way. You also have to observe the students and see where they're having problems and try to figure out why and try different things. The other two things you have to keep in mind are (1) the teacher has to be sure they're not subconsciously assuming all students will learn best the way the particular teacher learns best and (2) not everything to be taught should be taught in the same way; sometimes the nature of the material or skill lends itself better to certain modalities.
Quick responses:
-- I don't love "gadget" either, but Heyes (and I) argue the opposite, that most of our cognitive architecture is shaped culturally, and I think science is increasingly trending toward our view
-- Glad to know you found The Science of Learning useful!
-- I can only say re learning styles that it's been studied rigorously and it does not work generally (http://www.danielwillingham.com/learning-styles-faq.html); there's a subtle different between this and using different modes to present content, which you rightfully state is good pedagogical practice
-- I too find it mystifying that schools of ed resist cog-sci (I started Deans for Impact to change this!)
-- And fully agree that teaching improves when cognitive principles are well understood!
Just to clarify, I think all of us have genetic general intelligence. That's the foundation. I think AI doesn't have that. AI people want to act like computers are organic and can grow themselves and "learn," change their architecture, and teach themselves. They use words like "computational" to refer to people's brains so we think computers are like brains, if not minds. My brain is not a "programmable device that stores, retrieves, and processes data." It does MUCH more than that. I am not a robot.
There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that brains are built on a genetic foundation of neurons and synapses. But these are living cells. Everyone has general intelligence and can learn new things. We can learn new things from our own experience, but we can learn faster and better with social interaction, and social interaction can motivate us more. We each have some areas where we have more particular innate ability. But we can all learn things that we're not as innately good at, and abilities and the ability to learn does not have anything to do with phenotypes.
Back in the 70's and 80's teaching was so exciting because we had cognitive learning principles and everything was trending towards teaching being more student-centered instead of one-size-fits-all, and teachers having more professional autonomy, and understanding and coming up with innovative teaching methods. We just needed time to process all this and apply different methods to where they worked best. But then that all shut down starting in the 90's. Economists started bashing education and saying we keep "throwing money at it" with no result, and bashing teachers and saying they were all terrible and there's no science to it. But that was all because business people wanted to declare public education a failure so they could come in and fill their pockets with taxpayer money, taking over schools when they had no idea how people learn.
I forgot to add, I think we've regressed, in general, back to Skinnerism, and I think that's a problem.
Here are my crazy ideas for teacher preparation. I figure they must be crazy because they don't seem to occur to anyone else. Just for high school, because that's what I've always taught. Though I think elementary, PK-8, should be a mix of Montessori, Reggio Emilia, and Waldorf.
Teacher Preparation Program for High School Teaching:
*Strong foundation in psychology and sociology; at least three classes each, including 101, besides required psychology courses.
Required Courses:
*Cognitive Psychology, Adolescent Psychology.
*If not demonstrably bilingual, students need 101 and 102 of any language other than English (or four years of any foreign languages in high school, at any level; three years of any foreign languages at any level exempts you from 101 in a language you’ve studied) in order to have some idea of what obstacles ELL students face, to be able to relate to them.
*Two semester courses on teaching students with learning disabilities.
*Major in content area.
*One semester course in classroom management.
*One semester course in writing lesson plans.
*One semester course in using technology in the classroom.
*Two semesters of clinicals/internships where the teacher candidate works as an unpaid Para in a classroom of their content area. The teacher candidate receives semester credit but tuition is waived except for a small general fee. This way students gain valuable experience through a work-related relationship as a colleague, learning as much as in a traditional field experience/student teaching program, but without the unnecessary performative stress before they’re ready for it; and, more teachers have paras (all need them). Win-win.
There should not be a grade requirement to enter the program, but teacher candidates must have no grade lower than a C in Required Courses and a B average in content area in order to complete the program. Upon completion of the program, teacher candidates should be automatically awarded a Master’s degree and a teaching license.