De Bruyckere / Kirschner / Hulshof Urban Myths about Learning and Education

1. Auflage 2015
ISBN: 978-0-12-801731-9
Verlag: Elsevier Science & Techn.
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: 6 - ePub Watermark

E-Book, Englisch, 226 Seiten

Many things people commonly believe to be true about education are not supported by scientific evidence.ÿ Urban Myths about Learning and Education examines commonly held incorrect beliefs and then provides the truth of what research has shown.ÿ Each chapter examines a different myth, with sections on learning, the brain, technology, and educational policy.ÿ A final section discusses why these myths are so persistent.ÿ Written in an engaging style, the book separates fact from fiction regarding learning and education. Recognize any of these myths? - People have different styles of learning - Boys are naturally better at mathematics than girls - We only use 10% of our brains - The left half of the brain is analytical, the right half is creative - Men have a different kind of brain from women - We can learn while we are asleep - Babies become smarter if they listen to classical music These myths and more are systematically debunked, with useful correct information about the topic in question. - Debunks common myths about learning and education - Provides empirical research on the facts relating to the myths - Utilizes light-hearted, approachable language for easy reading

Pedro De Bruyckere (1974) is an educational scientist at Arteveldehogeschool University College, Ghent, Belgium (www.arteveldehs.be) since 2001. He co-wrote several popular books in Dutch debunk popular myths on GenY and GenZ, education and pop culture. Pedro is an often asked public speaker, one of his strongest points is that he is funny in explaining serious stuff. Pedro is often asked in media in both Belgium and The Netherlands on topics of both education and Youth and was mentioned by Dutch Magazine Vrij Nederland as one of the most influential voices in educational debates.

Autoren/Hrsg.

De Bruyckere, Pedro

Kirschner, Paul A.

Hulshof, Casper D.

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1;Front Cover;1
2;Urban Myths about Learning and Education;4
3;Copyright Page;5
4;Contents;6
5;Preface;10
6;Acknowledgments;14
7;1 The Big Clear-Out;16
7.1;Sometimes We are Lazy;22
7.2;Thinking in Boxes;24
7.3;Our Vision of Education?;25
7.4;Brass Farthing;26
7.5;Cream Cakes;27
7.6;Dear Experts…;27
7.7;A Who’s Who of the World of Education Research;28
8;2 Myths about Learning;32
8.1;Introduction;33
8.2;Myth 1 People Have Different Styles of Learning;35
8.3;Myth 2 The Effectiveness of Learning Can Be Shown in a Pyramid;43
8.4;Myth 3 You Learn 70% Informally, 20% from Others and Just 10% through Formal Education;51
8.5;Myth 4 If You Can Look Everything Up, Is Knowledge so Important?;54
8.6;Myth 5 Knowledge Is as Perishable as Fresh Fish;59
8.7;Myth 6 You Learn Better if You Discover Things for Yourself rather than Having Them Explained to You by Others;63
8.8;Myth 7 You Can Learn Effectively through Problem-Based Education;69
8.9;Myth 8 Boys Are Naturally Better at Mathematics than Girls;73
8.10;Myth 9 In Education, You Need to Take Account of Different Types of Intelligence;78
8.11;Myth 10 Our Memory Records Exactly What We Experience;85
8.12;Myth 11 School Kills Creativity;92
8.13;Myth 12 Ninety-Three Percent of Our Communication Is Non-Verbal;97
8.14;So, What Exactly Do We Know about Learning?;101
8.15;Feedback;101
8.16;The Basis of Remembering: Processing and Emotion;102
8.17;Learning Through Concrete Examples;103
8.18;Give Your Learners Variety and Surprise;103
8.19;Make Sure You Have Enough Breaks;103
8.20;Barak Rosenshine’s 10 Principles of Good Instruction;104
9;3 Neuromyths;108
9.1;Introduction;108
9.2;Myth 1 We Are Good Multitaskers;111
9.3;Myth 2 We Only Use 10% of Our Brains;115
9.4;Myth 3 The Left Half of the Brain Is Analytical, the Right Half Is Creative;119
9.5;Myth 4 You Can Train Your Brain with Brain Gym and Brain Games;123
9.6;Myth 5 Men Have a Different Kind of Brain than Women;128
9.7;Myth 6 We Can Learn While We Are Asleep;131
9.8;Myth 7 Babies Become Cleverer if They Listen to Classical Music;134
9.9;Myth 8 We Think Most Clearly When We Are Under Pressure;137
9.10;Does It Help to Have a Correct Knowledge of How the Brain Works?;139
10;4 Myths about Technology in Education;142
10.1;Myth 1 New Technology Is Causing a Revolution in Education;144
10.2;Myth 2 The Internet Belongs in the Classroom Because It Is Part of the Personal World Experienced by Children;150
10.3;Myth 3 Today’s Digital Natives Are a New Generation Who Want a New Style of Education;154
10.4;Myth 4 The Internet Makes Us Dumber;160
10.5;Myth 5 Young People Don’t Read Any More;164
10.6;Myth 6 You Learn Nothing from Games Other than Violence;169
10.7;Myth 7 You Can Help Poor Children to Learn Just by Giving Them Access to Computers;173
10.8;Learning and Technology: A Few Tips;177
11;5 Myths in Educational Policy;180
11.1;Myth 1 You Can Justifiably Compare the School Results of Different Countries;181
11.2;Myth 2 Class Size Doesn’t Matter;186
11.3;Myth 3 Larger Schools Are Better than Small Ones;191
11.4;Myth 4 Separate Education for Boys and Girls Is More Effective than Mixed Education;193
11.5;Myth 5 Boys Benefit if They Have Lessons from Men More Regularly;197
11.6;Myth 6 Grade Retention – Being Left Back – Has a Positive Effect on Learning;201
11.7;Myth 7 More Money Means Better Education;204
11.8;Myth 8 Education Never Changes;206
12;6 Myth Persistence and Myth Busting;210
12.1;Why are these Myths so Persistent?;210
12.2;Moral Panic and Educational Myths;212
12.3;What Can We do about this?;213
12.4;How Can I Avoid Believing Myths or Passing them on to Others?;216
12.5;Into the Future: What About the Myths to Come?;218
13;Index;220

Leseproben

Chapter 2 Myths about Learning
This section looks at some popular thoughts about learning, relating to “theories” surrounding learning and the paradigms (behaviorist, cognitivist and constructivist) that people use to justify their actions. The idea of adapting education to different styles of learning is investigated, along with learning pyramids and informal versus formal learning. We ask whether knowledge is really necessary in the Internet era, and how stable knowledge is. Could discovery learning allow us to learn more effectively? Is problem-based education the best way to learn to solve problems? Perceived gender differences in mathematics and the notion that school kills creativity are investigated, along with theories of multiple intelligences and non-verbal communication. Research on human memory shows that our memories are never wholly accurate. Effective learning methods include providing feedback, learning through concrete examples and taking breaks from learning. Keywords
70–20–10 rule; creativity; discovery learning; gender differences in mathematics; knowledge obsolescence; knowledge society; learning pyramid; learning style; memory; multiple intelligences; non-verbal communication; problem-based learning Contents Introduction 18 References 19 Myth 1 People Have Different Styles of Learning 20 References 26 Myth 2 The Effectiveness of Learning Can Be Shown in a Pyramid 28 References 35 Myth 3 You Learn 70% Informally, 20% from Others and Just 10% through Formal Education 36 References 38 Myth 4 If You Can Look Everything Up, Is Knowledge so Important? 39 References 42 Myth 5 Knowledge Is as Perishable as Fresh Fish 44 References 46 Myth 6 You Learn Better if You Discover Things for Yourself rather than Having Them Explained to You by Others 48 References 52 Myth 7 You Can Learn Effectively through Problem-Based Education 54 References 57 Myth 8 Boys Are Naturally Better at Mathematics than Girls 58 References 61 Myth 9 In Education, You Need to Take Account of Different Types of Intelligence 63 References 68 Myth 10 Our Memory Records Exactly What We Experience 70 References 75 Myth 11 School Kills Creativity 77 References 81 Myth 12 Ninety-Three Percent of Our Communication Is Non-Verbal 82 References 85 Introduction
We go to school to learn, but what exactly do we know about learning and how do we make use of what we know in daily practice? In this first series of myths we will look at a number of popular (in other words, stubborn and very persistent) thoughts about how we learn – or don’t. Two different aspects come to light in this discussion. The first relates to “theories” surrounding learning. An example of this is all that has been written about learning styles, work forms, and knowledge versus problem solving. We will discuss questions such as: Are there different styles of learning? Are there different work forms that allow us to learn more or less? We will also look at what we need to learn: now that we can look everything up on the Internet, is all that knowledge really necessary? Is solving problems the best way to learn to solve problems? These different aspects will be discussed specifically in the first dozen myths or so. The second relates to paradigms that people (researchers and teachers, but also politicians, administrators, advisers, etc.) use to justify their actions. The three most prevalent paradigms are the behaviorist paradigm, the cognitivist (also often called the instructivist) paradigm and the constructivist (and its offshoots social-constructivist and constructionist) paradigm. We take the time to discuss this here, before going to the myths. There are three reasons why we oppose this approach. The first reason is because this way of thinking tends to separate and compartmentalize people into camps where one is for or against and as such stimulates dogmas and academic wars. This is the last thing that education needs. The second reason is that, strangely enough, at least two of the three schools of thinking are so closely related to each other that differentiation is absurd. If we look at cognitivism and constructivism closely we see the following: • Constructivism is a philosophy of the world which states that we all construct our own reality based on our own knowledge and experiences. A cognitivist – if such a thing actually existed – would say that each individual constructs her or his own schema based on prior knowledge and new learning experiences. • Early constructivists couched their educational theories in terms of terminology and theorists such as situated cognition (Brown, Collins, & Duguid), cognitive apprenticeship (Collins) and cognitive flexibility (Spiro, Coulson, Feltovich, & Anderson). • The “gurus” of constructivism such as Jean Piaget (i.e., assimilation and accommodation=accretion, tuning and restructuring) and Vygotsky (e.g., cognitive development results from an internalization of language) were originally seen as cognitive psychologists (see Vygotsky). Finally, thinking that one paradigm is sufficient for effective, efficient and enjoyable learning is as absurd as thinking that there is one best way of cooking. A top chef makes use of a wide variety of techniques (e.g., baking, frying, freezing), tools (e.g., paring knife, steam oven, blender) and ingredients (e.g., vegetables, meats, herbs, spices) to create meals that fit both the eater and the occasion. An educational designer or teacher should, in our opinion, work as and be considered to be a top educational chef and should not be limited by artificial limits on her or his art and science. In what you are about to read, those readers who are of bad faith (i.e., those who think that the word instruction is a curse) might find a reason or two that seems to argue against change or in favor of boring lessons, without taking due account of the differences between pupils. Nothing could be further from the truth. As stated, a good teacher works with a carefully considered mix of different work forms, based on a number of different elements. In part, this can be a matter of personal preference, but it is also important to take account of the initial starting point of the pupils. We will show that styles of learning do not exist, but this is not to say that pupils do not differ in terms of interests. We will also question the appropriateness of particular work forms, but this is not to say that they are not excellent in other situations and for other purposes. A real education professional knows that there is no such thing as a “one-size-fits-all” approach, not for learners and not for groups of learners. References
1. Anderson RC. The notion of schemata and the educational enterprise. In: Anderson RC, Spiro RJ, Montague WE, eds. Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1977:415–431. 2. Brown JS, Collins A, Duguid P. Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher. 1989;18(1):32–42. 3. Collins A. Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology Cambridge, MA: BBN Labs; 1988; (Technical Report No. 6899). 4. Rumelhart DE, Norman DA. Accretion, tuning, and restructuring: Three modes of learning. In: Klatzy JWCR, ed. Semantic factors in cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1978:37–53. 5. Spiro RJ, Coulson RL, Feltovich PJ, Anderson DK. Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading; 1988; (Technical Report No. 441). 6. Vygotsky LS. Thought and language Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1962. 7. Vygotsky LS. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1978. 8. Vygotsky LS. Thinking and speech. In: Rieber RW, Carton AS, eds. The collected works of L S Vygotsky, Volume 1: Problems of general psychology. New York: Plenum Press; 1987:39–285. (Original work published 1934). Myth 1 People Have Different Styles of Learning
People are all different and so we all learn differently. This is a truism that is hard to deny. Because of this, for many teachers it feels intuitively right to say that there are people who prefer to learn visually, while others prefer to learn auditively, and yet others kinesthetically. We all know the type of pupil who needs to have heard everything (i.e., auditive style), who works in stark contrast to the pupil who remembers things by linking them to a movement (i.e., kinesthetic style). Then there are those who prefer verbal methods, who again contrast strongly with those who prefer to think in images. Problems?
Is there a problem here,...