Once in a while, I read something I know is intended to be helpful, but I wonder whether the author’s attempts to find middle ground has really been helpful. This is the case with a recent post from the “Deans for Impact” blog concerning resistance to science.
The post uses two examples – rejection of climate change and educators believing in learning styles. The post attempts why intelligent folks can say they believe in science, but reject specific scientific findings. The explanation raised in the post for this inconsistency is “cultural cognition”. I must admit this is a new concept for me. As I understand the argument, cultural cognition involves the personal interpretation of facts and evidence using existing values. To me, this sounds like several of sources of bias social psychologists discuss. The blog authors note that self-identity (industry-defending conservatives, autonomous teacher) influences cultural cognition.
It was the self-identity threat to teacher autonomy that first caused me confusion. Again, the connection between autonomy and the rejection of science seems messy to me. As I understand the argument, teachers believe in learning styles and resent those they perceive as “outsiders” telling them learning styles are not real. The authors seem to indicate that teachers feel they are being “preached” at. Trying to follow the logic of the post, does this also then propose that conservatives are resistant to taking action on climate change because they feel they are being preached at.
The Deans for Impact post offers some suggestions. Again, I find the suggestions confusing.
learning science should borrow from the playbooks of good science teachers. These teachers do not prioritize getting students to reject their existing beliefs, but instead seek to foster new scientific knowledge in their students. They replace scientific misconceptions, rather than debunk them.
Here is an example. I think this reference is to something called “conceptual change” and the problem of what is called “inert knowledge”. However, the point of concept change instructional tactics is to confront flawed knowledge so as not to create inert knowledge. The concept of inert knowledge suggests that learners can have situational knowledge – school knowledge, real world knowledge. The situation triggers which model of how things work is activated. The point is that unless the flawed models of the world are debunked learners may continue to store both models with the unfortunate consequence being that what is learned in school has little transfer value. So, if this is what the authors are referencing they are interpreting the theory and related research incorrectly – you do need to activate and debunk flawed concepts of how the world works to influence application.
One of the tactics the authors recommend seems an effort at a compromise rather than a direct challenge. The authors propose a focus on the use of multiple-modalities and theories such as dual-coding. Perhaps this is what educators who use the phrase learning styles really mean. This has not been my experience. When a teacher says “I am a visual learner”, he or she is not proposing there is personal value in the use of multiple-modalities. I do engage students when they take this position usually trying to suggest that what they have is a personal preference.
I suppose some researchers may come off as condescending. This is regrettable. I think that the researchers are seldom the problem no matter their egos. The odds that any given teacher has interacted with a researcher who has done the trait x treatment interaction studies necessary to test for the value of a particular hypothesized learning style is very remote. As a professor working with pre- and in-service educators, I would not claim to be one of these researchers. I would guess this would also be the case for most college science profs presenting the current thinking on climate change. With the exception of a few specific areas of expertise, most of us are conveying the general consensus on specific issues. We are expected to be familiar with this information and to have read at least some of the research.
One of the issues I think is relevant here concerns the reaction learners have when learning in different content areas. After explaining naive science and the research on conceptual change, I talk about this issue. While the research on conceptual change has mostly been done with physics (I think this is a fair statement). This is because we experience things in the real world that act according to the laws of physics whether we have formal training or not. Certain misconceptions in this area are well known. The issue I propose with my students that if their misconceptions with the understanding of physics because of personal experience, wouldn’t this seem an even greater challenge for the instruction of psychology? If psychology is the “study of human behavior” and we are humans, wouldn’t we build personal explanations of such behaviors whether we have formal training or not. I suggest that part of the challenge is always addressing the personal theories that do not match the formal theories.