Want to get notified about new posts? Join the mailing list and follow on X/Twitter.
There are numerous peer-reviewed academic studies about how the science of learning is missing from teacher education.
Here are some entrypoints into the literature:
Teaching the science of learning (Weinstein, Madan, & Sumeracki, 2018)
-
*“The science of learning has made a considerable contribution to our understanding of effective teaching and learning strategies. However, few instructors outside of the field are privy to this research.
In particular, a review published 10 years ago identified a limited number of study techniques that have received solid evidence from multiple replications testing their effectiveness in and out of the classroom (Pashler et al., 2007).
A recent textbook analysis (Pomerance, Greenberg, & Walsh, 2016) took the six key learning strategies from this report by Pashler and colleagues, and found that very few teacher-training textbooks cover any of these six principles — and none cover them all, suggesting that these strategies are not systematically making their way into the classroom.
This is the case in spite of multiple recent academic (e.g., Dunlosky et al., 2013) and general audience (e.g., Dunlosky, 2013) publications about these strategies.”*
How learning happens: Seminal works in educational psychology and what they mean in practice (Kirschner & Hendrick, 2024, pp.275)
-
*”…[M]ost students, and also many or even most teachers, don’t have an accurate picture of the effectiveness of their study approach.
After more than a hundred years of research into learning and memory, there are a few things that we know about good and less good approaches. Since the turn of this century, people have been trying to figure out how to remember as much as possible, how to ensure that we forget as little as possible, and how to do this in as little time as possible.
The reason we have our doubts with respect to teachers is because the findings that have emerged from this research aren’t yet included in textbooks for teachers (both in research in the US, as well as in the Netherlands and Flanders; Pomerance, Greenberg, & Walsh, 2016; Surma, Vanhoyweghen, Camp, & Kirschner, 2018).”*
Unanswered questions about spaced interleaved mathematics practice (Rohrer & Hartwig, 2020)
- “We fear, however, that continued advocacy might fall on deaf ears… [E]mpirical evidence is not highly valued by many of the educators who recommend learning methods and train teachers (e.g., Robinson, Levin, Thomas, Pituch, & Vaughn, 2007; Sylvester Dacy, Nihalani, Cestone, & Robinson, 2011). Against this backdrop, it might be difficult to inspire the kind of support for evidence-based interventions like those that sparked the dramatic improvements in Western medicine over the last century. Doing so, we believe, is the most pressing challenge facing learning scientists.”
Another thing you might do is look at the curricula of standard teacher credentialing programs, and schools of education (especially those within well-reputed universities). Last I checked, these curricula were entirely focused on making education engaging, diverse, and unbiased, with little to nothing about the science of learning.
I also wrote a little bit about my personal experience here.
When I completed my teaching credential from 2020-21 and attended numerous professional developments (PDs) from 2019-23, not once did I hear any mention of cognitive learning strategies (mastery learning, spaced repetition, the testing effect, varied practice, etc.), even though these strategies have been researched extensively since the early to mid 1900s, with key findings being successfully reproduced over and over again since then.
Forget the science of learning – even the most obvious practical skills that a teacher would need to exercise on a daily basis, such as managing a rowdy classroom, communicating with parents, holding students accountable for their work, and dealing with academic dishonesty, were not covered at all in teacher credentialing nor PD.
Ironically, the teaching profession seems to drive out the people who are most interested in optimizing students’ learning. That’s one thing I didn’t expect when I entered the profession: lots of people in education disagree with the premise of maximizing learning.
Want to get notified about new posts? Join the mailing list and follow on X/Twitter.