More Pedagogy? What Pedagogy?

True pedagogy should promote effective teaching practices

License Creative Commons

Paco Benítez

“The original sin of progressive education is that it has been far more concerned with defining itself in opposition to traditional schooling than with creating a consistent educational alternative. It has embraced the notion that anything opposed to traditional schooling is good, but it is unwise to play with either the authority of the teacher or the authority of content”.

(John Dewey, American educator, psychologist, and philosopher, 1859-1952)

Recently, an article by Professor Maria del Mar Sánchez Vera from the Faculty of Education at the University of Murcia, along with discussions in the #virtualstaffroom on social media, has once again emphasized the need for teachers to receive more robust pedagogical training. Some have even suggested establishing a university degree in secondary education to replace the current degrees in specialized disciplines such as history, biology, chemistry, mathematics, etc. The article states that “it is urgent to rethink the initial and ongoing pedagogical training of teachers so that it is not merely a formality but an essential foundation for building high-quality teaching that leaves no one behind”.

To this, I must first say that I wholeheartedly agree. However, the real issue lies in the kind of training teachers currently receive. When it is pointed out that “it is curious, if not paradoxical, that we are hired to teach but not adequately prepared for it”, I find myself in complete agreement. Yet the key lies in ensuring that “we are trained properly”—that is, based on scientific and empirical evidence about the most effective methods and strategies for fostering student learning.

The training future teachers receive in faculties of education too often contradicts this evidence. For example, in the Master’s Degree in Teacher Training at UNED (and, regrettably, it is not the only public university perpetuating these educational myths), students are required to read claims such as “the aim of personalized learning is to move away from lectures by designing project-based learning experiences,” that “students should select the types of experiences they wish to have”, that “students must be encouraged to take control of their own learning,” that there is a “conflict between knowledge and the ability to create and generate ideas”, and that we must promote “flexible curricula” and “electronic personal learning plans”.

All these statements are misleading according to the evidence. The false dichotomy between knowledge and complex skills like creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving continues to be pushed, despite clear research showing that one relies on the other—in other words, knowledge is a prerequisite for higher-order skills (Neuman et al., 2014). Additionally, project-based learning has been shown to be counterproductive for students without a solid grasp of the subject matter, especially for those from disadvantaged backgrounds (Kirschner et al., 2006; Alfieri et al., 2011). Furthermore, students rarely choose the activities or content most beneficial for their learning (Carpenter et al., 2020); a structured, content-rich, and coherently organized curriculum remains the most reliable path to quality education and equal opportunities (Hirsch, 1987). Lastly, electronic personal learning plans are founded on neuromyths and do not enhance learning (Spitzer, 2013; Desmurget, 2020).

It is both ironic and concerning that this so-called “training” often aligns with the views of those advocating for more pedagogical preparation. According to their own words, “there are teachers who view teaching as a secondary task, assuming that classes are merely a means to transmit disciplinary content, without acknowledging that teaching requires the development of specific skills beyond content mastery”.

Why this persistent effort to pit knowledge against both students and teachers? Knowledge only ever brings benefits: for students, the more they know, the more they can learn; for teachers, research shows that deep expertise in their subject has the greatest positive impact on student learning (Coe et al., 2014; Berry et al., 2016).

Indeed, strong subject knowledge does not conflict with possessing “specific teaching skills”—quite the opposite. As Jordi Martí aptly explains, “A thorough understanding of a subject allows us to be more creative in our teaching, uncover innovative ways to present content, make unexpected connections between concepts, and spark our students’ curiosity”.

What is clear is that future primary and secondary school teachers should be taught how memory works, the scientific insights cognitive psychology provides about how learning occurs, and the most effective teaching practices suited to different types of students and academic disciplines. Sadly, continuous professional development for teachers often undermines this, not only failing to promote evidence-based teaching methods but at times even mocking them. Instead, it frequently champions either unproven methods (such as social-emotional learning) or those directly contradicted by scientific research (like project-based learning for students lacking prior knowledge). This makes it difficult for teachers to take such training seriously because, at best, it appears “curious, if not paradoxical”.

Rather than fixating on how to teach, as certain pedagogical circles do—constantly insisting on the need for more “pedagogical training”—perhaps it would be more productive to focus on how students learn (the science of learning). That would be a truly student-centred approach, as it would help us step into our students’ shoes and adjust our teaching methods accordingly. Pedagogical methods are not an end in themselves—unless, of course, one’s reputation in educational circles relies on championing a particular method, as happens with some educational “influencers”—but rather a means to achieve real learning.

If the methods taught in faculties of education contradict the findings of cognitive psychology, they are even less defensible. Without understanding human cognitive processes, instructional design is nothing but guesswork (Sweller et al., 2011). What often masquerades as a student-centred approach is, in reality, a pedagogue-centred approach. When teacher training incorporates human cognition as the foundation for classroom strategies, teachers will naturally become more interested in strengthening their pedagogical knowledge. Otherwise, we will continue resisting pedagogical overreach—not out of stubbornness, but from a sense of personal responsibility and a desire to avoid professional negligence.

Instead of teaching how to use the latest digital gadget or pushing the newest methodological trend, perhaps we should start with something that has remained unchanged for thousands of years: how the brain works, how memory functions, and the invaluable insights cognitive psychology offers. Pedagogical ideology often seeks to influence teachers’ beliefs and reshape their identities—an extraordinarily difficult task—but the growing body of scientific evidence exposes many of their unfounded claims: poor international test results (PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS); extensive empirical research from cognitive psychology; real-world examples like Michaela School in London and Charter Schools in the U.S., where high standards of academic and behavioural expectations enable its student body, largely from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, immigrant communities, and ethnic minorities, to achieve results that surpass those of elite private schools in the area. In addition to direct classroom experience, this context allows many novice teachers to witness firsthand the impracticality of applying the theories acquired during their “pedagogical training”.

True pedagogy should promote effective teaching practices that have a measurable positive impact on students, especially the most vulnerable. Teachers do not want to “forget those who fall behind”. This is what truly pains us, as we see day after day how students from disadvantaged backgrounds lack the cultural and economic capital to compensate for educational gaps and the absence of a rigorous, content-rich curriculum—gaps often widened by current education policies shaped by pedagogues claiming to fight for equity. Now that is truly “curious, if not paradoxical”.

References:

Alfieri, L., Brooks, P.J., Aldrich, N.J. and Tenenbaum, H.R. (2011). Does Discovery-Based Instruction Enhance Learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103 (1), 1-18.

Berry, A., Depaepe, F. y Van Driel, J. (2016). Pedagogical content knowledge in teacher education. International Handbook of Teacher Education: Volume 1, 347-386.

Carpenter, S.K., Witherby, A.E. & Tauber, S.K. (2020). On Students’ (Mis)judgments of Learning and Teaching Effectiveness. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 9(2), 137-151.

Coe, R., Aloisi, C., Higgins, S. y Elliot Major, L., (2014). What makes great teaching? Review of the underpinning research. The Sutton Trust, Durham University.

Desmurget, M. (2020). La fábrica de cretinos digitales. Los peligros de las pantallas para nuestros hijos. Península: Barcelona.

Hirsch, E.D. (1987). Cultural Literacy, What Every American Needs to Know. Boston, MA. Houghton Mifflin Company.

Kirschner, P., Sweller, J. & Clark, R. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-based, Experiential and Inquiry-based Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.

Neuman, S.B., Kaefer, T. & Pinkham, A. (2014). Building Background Knowledge. The Reading Teacher, 68(2), 145-148.

Spitzer, M. (2013). Demencia digital. El peligro de las nuevas tecnologías. Ediciones B: Barcelona.

Sweller, J., Ayers P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Springer.

Source: educational EVIDENCE

Rights: Creative Commons