Being research-informed is an integral part of a teacher’s responsibilities in the FE and skills sector. The second of the Education and Training Foundation’s (ETF) Professional Standards for Teachers and Trainers makes clear the need to “maintain and update your knowledge of educational research to develop evidence-based practice”.

Thanks to some well-informed teaching practitioners, unsuccessful learning styles have been knocked off their well-established perches in the past few years. The foundations of the learning pyramid have collapsed following a misinterpretation of the information, and the doors to the brain gym have been slammed shut. There are still some ideas lacking any substantiated evidence that we just can’t shake off, however.

This article will explore what myths are still at large - and why they might need busting, too.

Myth 1: Teaching generic skills over subject knowledge

FE is often the bridge between education and employment, so it is little wonder that there is an emphasis on teaching generic skills such as problem solving, creativity and critical analysis. The thing is, we can’t teach them. That is not to say, of course, that they aren’t of importance, but these skills, according to André Tricot and John Sweller, are naturally acquired without the need for instruction.

The key to acquiring them, however, lies in the acquisition of subject knowledge. The greater the subject knowledge, the greater the ability to problem solve, to critically analyse, to create. Take the mechanic who knows the engine of a car inside out and compare him or her with the mechanic with little knowledge of the engine. Who is best likely to solve an issue with the car?

Myth 2: Teaching in blocks

It is observed that many programmes of study within the typical FE establishment are delivered in distinct blocks, possibly to aid learner achievement. There is no doubt that this helps that, but it doesn’t help a learner’s actual retention of information. In fact, where there is learning, there is always forgetting, so come the end of the academic year, it shouldn’t be a total surprise to you that some learners will struggle to remember a topic that was last covered the previous September.

Believe it or not, we can actually improve long-term memory simply by spacing the learning apart. It makes absolute sense to teach units/topics long and thin, but for some bizarre reason, many still ignore the research and teach in blocks.

Myth 3: Personalised/ individualised learning

It seems counterintuitive to suggest that we shouldn’t attempt to meet individual learners’ needs but - surprise, surprise - there is actually little evidence to show that personalising learning has any sort of significant impact on students’ achievement.

In fact, some studies have even found that by personalising the learning, there was a delay of progress by one to two months.

It has been suggested that in a classroom setting that uses personalised learning, learners actually receive less direct teaching, get less feedback or move at a slower pace. Yet again, despite the lack of evidence of its benefits, how much emphasis is placed on personalised learning in your institution?

Myth 4: Student control over learning

There seems to be a fad in the sector at the moment for teachers providing learners with autonomy over their learning. This means giving learners choice in the activities they do in order to meet a spurious learning objective. My question about this method is this: how do learners know what they need to know?

The research supports this scepticism, with John Hattie finding a negligible “effect size” (0.04) with student control over learning. It might work in some circumstances, but why not focus on methods that have been shown to be more effective?

Myth 5: Raising aspirations

Did I actually just say that raising aspirations is a myth? Yes, I did. There is very little research to show any causal link between aspiration and attainment. It has been suggested that most young people already have high aspirations and that underachievement doesn’t result from low aspirations, but a lack of knowledge and skills. So shouldn’t the focus be on the knowledge and skills? It is acknowledged that the evidence here is limited and I am not saying that we shouldn’t encourage learners to aspire to be better, but be wary of any cross-school/college interventions or strategies, particularly when there is a new buzzword attached to them.

To refer to some of these methods as myths may come as a surprise to some - but it shouldn’t. It is widely recognised that nothing is conclusive when it comes to education; something can work for everyone and everything can work for someone.

However, implementing cross-college/school interventions and strategies should always be considered more carefully and be informed by research. The above “myths” are not.

As the ETF’s professional standard number eight rightly says: “Evaluate and challenge your practice, values and beliefs.”

Dan Williams is an FE practitioner in the Midlands. He tweets at @FurtherEdagogy

This is an article from the 8 April edition of TES. This week’s TES magazine is available in all good newsagents. To download the digital edition, Android users can click here and iOS users can click here

Want to keep up with the latest education news and opinion? Follow TES FE News on Twitter and like TES FE News on Facebook