Rational educational tradition versus disruptive emotional perversion

License Creative Commons

David Rabadà

The other day, I came across a note I had scribbled at the age of 15, tucked between my evolutionary biology class notes. Amidst my teacher’s explanations, my adolescent self had written the following: Love is a biological trap for human reproduction. Surprisingly, throughout my life, I have never desired to have children—a consistent, rational stance entirely in line with that phrase penned 43 years ago. Perhaps, as many have reproached me, I have been, and still am, excessively rational. I understand that humans are a blend of rational thoughts and emotional reactions, but in my case—and without claiming to be right—I strive to let rationality weigh more heavily than emotion, aiming for a healthy balance between the two.

If we were entirely rational, we might forego having children, viewing love and sex as biological reproductive traps. Conversely, if we were entirely emotional, we could annihilate our species by pressing a nuclear button in a fit of rage. It could be said that emotions drive us to both create and destroy life, whereas reason allows us to decide not to create life without destroying those who already exist. At least, this has been my own experience.

When it comes to education, unlike reproduction in the earlier context, pedagogical emotions unfortunately outweigh scientific reasoning. Across educational systems worldwide, ideological and emotional motivations prevail over rational, scientific evidence. In other words, emotional ideologies are trusted more than rational scientific demonstrations. Humans, being more emotional than rational—as evidenced by observing a football crowd—tend to make decisions that are less efficient and effective than those that might improve our communities. This is why, for over a century, we have endured one failed pedagogical experiment after another, yet persist in their errors. Advocating for rational, well-founded educational practices on social media has often resulted in my receiving a torrent of emotional and unfortunate insults. My brother-in-law affectionately jokes that every time I write, I gain more “friends.”

Regarding the emotional versus the rational in education, consider the debate between explicit instruction and discovery learning. The former is supported by cognitive psychology and scientific studies, whereas the latter is ideological yet dominates the pedagogies of most of our neighbouring countries, including our own. Experience and science tell us that prior knowledge significantly enhances the acquisition of new knowledge. Young students, with limited prior knowledge, find it nearly impossible to learn effectively through discovery. Try, for instance, learning quantum mechanics from a manual without any prior understanding of the subject—it would be nearly impossible. In contrast, if you are a football enthusiast, you can effortlessly read a sports newspaper, as your existing knowledge enables you to comprehend almost all the news and absorb gossip about players and coaches. In the first case, you would require a knowledgeable teacher, while in the second, you can manage on your own.

Despite all of this, ideological emotions continue to outweigh logical reasoning in pedagogy. We know with certainty that explicit, direct instruction enables students to learn more effectively, while discovery learning hampers the process. In short, students learn better and more quickly when supervised by knowledgeable teachers, as opposed to being left to work independently and learn through trial and error. With an attentive teacher, errors are corrected promptly, preventing the student from repeating them. Cognitive science, logic, and the experience of millions of educators confirm this, yet prevailing educational policies persist in denying it.

Another example of emotional pedagogy prevailing over rational science is the trend of always rewarding students to avoid frustrating them—regardless of whether they perform well or not. According to cognitive psychology, this practice reduces the effectiveness of praise and its associated dopamine rush due to overexposure, much like habituation to a drug. This approach is contributing to an exponential rise in impulsive behaviour among children. Science-based medicine advises that rewards should be given sparingly and at appropriate moments, yet false pedagogical theories suggest otherwise to parents and teachers. The conclusion is clear: students should not be praised if they have not put in effort. Objective evaluation and ensuring students are aware of their performance are key to improvement.

Another emotional pedagogical trend gaining ground is the push for children to avoid homework. Many parents’ associations, alongside psychologists and educators, argue that if parents don’t bring work home, neither should children. This is paradoxical, given that many adults do bring work home. Furthermore, PISA reports clearly indicate a positive correlation between students who do homework and higher academic achievement. The same is true for shadow education, where students receive private tutoring outside of school. This is why private academies and tutoring services are growing rapidly, although they are more accessible to affluent families than to those with fewer resources. This cannot be called equity.

In summary, emotional pedagogies driven by illogical ideologies criticise traditions as though anything old is inherently bad, forgetting that tradition encompasses those innovations that proved minimally effective. While we might wish to change everything, I hope that no matter how innovative you are told to be, you don’t try having sex through your nostrils.

Source: educational EVIDENCE

Rights: Creative Commons