Why you’re probably wrong about the science of learning

This article was originally published on 1 May 2024.

Most novel ideas follow a trend known as the Gartner Hype Cycle. This cycle begins with a period of overblown predictions, morphs into a period of active rebellion, then settles into an acceptable reality where the idea finds a functional slot within society.

About 10 years ago, the science of learning (SoL) was introduced in earnest across global education. The past decade has certainly seen a steady uptick in the discussion of this idea, especially among educators dubbed “traditional” in their thinking. Unfortunately, this excitement has begun to veer into exaggeration, with some pundits arguing that SoL will “transform education” and is “key to lifting student outcomes”.

As predicted by the hype cycle, a phase of active rebellion has begun, especially among educators dubbed “progressive” in their thinking. Over the past year, pundits have begun un-ironically arguing that “there is no such thing as the Science of Learning”, and that it “is a deliberate falsification”.

Here’s the interesting bit: much of the ongoing debate has absolutely nothing to do with SoL. Over the years, a significant conflation occurred, which has led both proponents and opponents to invoke the term when discussing something wholly different.

It is my hope that by clarifying this conflation, we can avoid the hype cycle and accurately position SoL as something that doesn’t take “sides” and can be equally relied upon by all.

Before moving on, it’s perhaps worth noting: I don’t know of any educator who falls squarely within either the “traditional” or “progressive” camps. As such, I am simply using these terms as conceptual categories to ease comprehension of the larger argument. If you see yourself reflected in both camps, rest assured, you are of the majority.

The conflation

Here’s a fun game: the next time you meet a research scientist, try calling him or her an engineer - or, conversely, the next time you meet an engineer, try calling him or her a research scientist.

If you attempt this, my guess is you’ll be regaled with a passionate, highly detailed, possibly quite heated explanation of the difference between theory and practice.

Broadly speaking, theory is the realm of academic researchers. Theory attempts to observe and describe the world by constructing abstracted, idealised and value-free models:

• Abstracted: Theories do not deal in particularities; details are often omitted in favour of generalisations. Think of road maps - these abstractions omit much detail of the physical terrain to simplify the decision-making process for drivers.
• Idealised: Theories do not deal in reality; subtle distortions are adopted that reflect nature in a perfect state. Think of geometry - this branch of maths derives ratios from perfect circles, triangles and parallel lines that do not truly exist within the natural world.
• Value-free: In favour of (attempted) impartial measurement and elucidation. Theories do not deal in subjective standards; morals and principles are ignored.
  
  

Broadly speaking, practice is the realm of practitioners. Practice attempts to influence and impact the world by enacting contextualised, naturalistic and value-laden physical or mental activities.

• Contextualised: Generalisations are regularly abandoned to account for unique details specific to each situation. Think of cooking in a professional kitchen versus a college dormitory room - the actions required to achieve your goal depend on the particularities of each setting.
• Naturalistic: Perfect forms are regularly abandoned in favour of messy reality. Think of kicking a football - although biophysics can describe the “optimum” kicking motion, in reality players must adjust to variations in weather, terrain and energy levels to achieve a particular outcome.
• Value-laden: Physical and mental activities are imbued with conceptions of what is good/bad or right/wrong. Think of mowing the lawn - this seemingly innocuous practice reflects beliefs about how man should interact with nature, the relationship between order and beauty, and the duty of individuals existing within larger social groups.

It is the problematic conflation of theory and practice that is driving the current SoL debate across education.

Science of learning v craft of teaching

The SoL is a vast network of researchers spanning dozens of different fields, ranging from affective neuroscience to cognitive genomics to social psychology.

One thing that unites these varied researchers is a dedication to developing abstracted, idealised, value-free models of learning. What predictable patterns does memory follow? What function does attention play in perception? How does motivation influence social engagement?

Education is a vast network of teachers spanning dozens of different fields, ranging from early years numeracy to high-school civics to graduate chemistry. One thing that unites these varied teachers is a dedication to performing the contextualised, naturalistic value-laden activities of teaching. What exercises best engender specific memory patterns? What materials best guide student attention? What routines best support student motivation?

As you can tell, although learning and teaching are certainly related, the two pursuits are largely dissociable.

For example, a few months back my wife asked how we could help our daughter learn to read. I explained that reading begins with the visual recognition of letters, moves into phonemic conversion and concludes with lexical access.

After this explanation, my wife confusedly looked at me and asked: “Sure, but how do we teach letters, phonemes and lexicon?”

To this, I had no clue.

Luckily, we know a lot of practising teachers. Together, we called a primary educator who helped us develop a practical plan that included materials such as letter blocks, techniques such as rhyming and strategies such as word/image matching.

The argument here is not that theory is useless in education. There’s no question that theoretical models of embodiment, emotions and comprehension can help teachers conceive of their work in deeper, more constructive terms. The argument is that these theories have basically nothing to say about the actual practice of teaching.

What environmental features should be employed to generate effective embodied actions with nervous Year 1 students? What pacing should be adopted to engender relevant emotions within a difficult maths class? What techniques enhance comprehension with Year 9 boys during a late-afternoon lesson?

These are practical issues that can only meaningfully be elucidated and addressed by practitioners of the craft of teaching itself.

Shoeing the horse

Once we separate learning and teaching, it becomes clear why researchers across the SoL rarely speak of “what works” (pedagogy). Rather, most researchers confine their discussions to “why things work as they do” (mechanism).

And here’s the important thing about mechanisms: there is more than one way to shoe a horse.

Consider the mechanism of salivation. Whenever tastebud activation at the tongue is accompanied by periodontal ligament activation at the gums, this triggers the reflexive release of saliva in the mouth.

Although this mechanistic description is wonderful, it in no way dictates any specific action.

There are hundreds of different techniques we can use to trigger the exact same mechanism, from ingesting food to sucking rocks to simply placing one finger on the tongue and another on the gums.

Let’s consider a learning example.

Empathy is an integral part of learning across all modalities (declarative, motor, socioemotional, etc). A key empathetic mechanism is interpersonal biological synchronisation, a process by which certain functional patterns within the brain and/or body of one person mimic the functional patterns within the brain and/or body of a different person.

Again, although this is a brilliant mechanism, it does not decree what must be done to engender empathy. In fact, in the lab, we’ve been able to trigger biological coupling using electrical currents, chemical injections, social interaction, external stimuli, electromagnetic fields and dozens of other techniques.

There is more than one way to shoe a horse.

For this reason, matters of practice can never be decided by deferring to theory; the latter will always be too general to address the former.

Babies and bathwater

Now we can tackle the primary problem with the ongoing SoL debate in education.

“Traditional” educators commonly argue that techniques such as retrieval practice and spaced repetition work well in the classroom. In response, “progressive” educators commonly counter that inquiry and real-world application are required for deep learning to occur.

The astute reader will recognise that these debates rightly concern pedagogy; they are focused on “what works”.

It is at this point where both sides of the debate can (and should) meaningfully draw equally upon SoL as a source of evidence to support their arguments.

For instance, consider memory. A key mechanism of memory formation is biological replay, a process by which certain parts of the brain and/or body rapidly cycle a particular pattern hundreds of times to establish a stable response.

This principle aligns well with “traditional” techniques such as retrieval practice, as answering a question will likely trigger biological replay.

However, this principle aligns equally well with “progressive” techniques such as inquiry, as asking a question will likely trigger biological replay just as readily.

Here’s where things have gone off the track.

“Traditional” educators appear all too happy to employ SoL as a source of evidence for their arguments. Unfortunately, rather than countering by employing the same mechanisms in a different manner, many “progressive” educators have adopted the curious tactic of outright rejecting SoL itself.

To argue that SoL is not real or a deliberate fabrication completely shifts the axis of debate. When one side is arguing practice and the other is arguing theory, neither will be able to find common ground and nothing of meaning can be accomplished.

To make matters worse, by abandoning the SoL, “progressive” educators are unwittingly throwing away one of their own strongest sources of evidence.

For example, a common argument against SoL is that human beings are not computers; far from being simple input/output machines, all human learning is interpersonal, embodied and enculturated. This is absolutely true.

Alas, much of our understanding of these concepts, their proposed mechanisms of action and even the terms themselves (“enculturated learning”) come from researchers working within the SoL. Arguing that SoL is nonsense while simultaneously arguing that learning is enculturated is no different from arguing that the law is nonsense while simultaneously arguing that drivers must follow the speed limit: absurd.

Which leads to a secondary issue. When “progressive” educators eschew SoL, they are forced to embrace certain positions antithetical to the historical thrust of their movement.

For example, it would not be incorrect (if somewhat oversimplified) to say that “traditional” educators have historically believed that different students possess different academic potential, while “progressive” educators have historically believed all students can equally succeed with support.

Recently, a group of SoL researchers published data that clearly demonstrates that, owing to the process of calcium-dependent synaptic plasticity, all human beings show near identical learning rates. After exploring thousands of students across dozens of year levels and classes, these researchers concluded that, “given favourable learning conditions…indeed, anyone can learn anything they want”.

Do you see the problem?

By a priori deciding that SoL is a deliberate fabrication, “progressive” educators must reject this research and adopt the converse - namely, that some students will be unable to learn certain things.

By conflating theory and practice, a key tenet of the entire movement is abandoned and schisms form.

And lest you think this ideological shift is absurd, just look at US politics. By a priori deciding that most academic research was inherently biased and untrustworthy, modern liberals were forced to embrace a set of philosophical ideals (such as a focus on tribalism over universalism) antithetical to classical liberal thinking. The rejection rather than the multiplicative interpretation of theory is one reason for the split among the typically united left voters in America today.

So what?

Does any of this truly matter or is this just an academic fluff?

Teachers well versed in the science of learning are more likely to employ student-centered, constructivist approaches within the classroom that largely centre on agency and deep comprehension (seeing as these practices have historically been the aim of “progressive” educators, this adds even more confusion to their disavowal of this work).

Furthermore, these practices have demonstrated the follow-on effect of enhanced student performance across both primary and secondary settings.

Students well versed in the science of learning show better academic performance, improved metacognitive application, enhanced learning attitudes and a deeper sense of responsibility over academic pursuits. In fact, deep understanding of the learning process has been shown to account for up to 40 per cent of the variation in student academic achievement.

Engaging accurately and meaningfully with SoL appears to be an incredibly meaningful undertaking for teachers and students alike. Eschewing the entire concept because of disdain for how some educators have chosen to apply this work is almost certainly a detrimental mistake.

The SoL bylaws

I believe there are three important ideas we can take away from this discussion; ideas that will (hopefully) help clear the waters and allow all people to engage equally with academic research.

1. Thou shalt separate learning and teaching

A pair of researchers recently released a book purportedly looking at key SoL research. Unfortunately, the majority of included studies were concerned with pedagogical practice; there was no mechanistic consideration in sight.

If we want educators to employ SoL correctly, it’s imperative that researchers begin by clarifying their work and drawing a hard line between why things work (learning) and what things work (teaching). When the “discussion” portions of research articles are filled with proposed practical applications that reflect neither the data nor the researchers’ expertise, everybody suffers.

2. Thou shalt not take sides

What do you think is the ultimate purpose of a general education? Is it to prepare students for work? Is it to build a functional society? Is it to help individuals self-actualise?

Whatever your answer, it does not matter to SoL. SoL is and will forever remain agnostic to issues of educational function: that is a defining element of theorisation (abstracted, idealised and value-free).

Accordingly, so long as your reason for education includes “learning” at some level, you can freely use SoL mechanisms as a source of evidence to support your thinking.

3. Thou shalt leave practical concerns to practitioners

Although there is a wealth of research exploring “what works best” in education (eg, John Hattie’s Visible Learning), it’s important not to confuse this work with SoL. Whenever experiments deal in strategy rather than mechanism, they are considered “educational” research rather than “learning” research.

Without a doubt, educational research is highly important but, like all practical issues, it will forever be contextualised, naturalistic and value-laden. This means “what works best” will necessarily change depending upon context and goal.

Accordingly, although drawing on educational research is worthwhile and can help align thinking, pedagogical decisions must always be ceded to the experts in pedagogy: namely, teachers.

Furthermore, educational research should not be conflated with learning research, lest the same debate perpetuates into the future.

Jared Cooney Horvath is a neuroscientist, educator and author

For the latest research, pedagogy and practical classroom advice delivered directly to your inbox every week, sign up to our Teaching Essentials newsletter