A survey found that 88 per cent of Australian teachers still believe in learning styles, a neuromyth debunked almost 20 years ago. Why do findings from the learning sciences fail to reach classrooms, and what would close the gap between researchers and teachers?
Sources
- Most teachers believe this learning myth that was debunked almost 20 years ago
A new survey reveals 88 per cent of Australian teachers still believe in learning styles.
Doni's answer
I think it may be a matter of individual teachers' beliefs getting involved. There seems to be a huge wall between the learning sciences and educational research, but since I haven't had enough experience in academia, I still don't really understand the cause.
As a scenario I briefly imagined: if ITS built on learning science evidence, delivered through LLM interfaces like ChatGPT and Claude, come to overwhelm humans in practical tutoring efficiency, then as a counter-reaction, wouldn't human teachers also end up studying efficient educational technology much more?
Still, the role of human teachers in the AI era seems to be a separate, larger discourse of its own.
Machine-translated from Korean by Claude Haiku 5.5.Show original
교사 개인의 신념이 개입하는 문제 아닐까 싶습니다. 학습과학과 교육학 사이에는 거대한 벽이 있는 듯 한데, 제가 학계에서 충분한 경험을 하지 못해서 아직 그 원인에 대해서는 잘 모르겠습니다.
잠깐 상상해본 시나리오로는, ChatGPT, Claude 등의 LLM 인터페이스에 학습과학적 근거들을 붙인 ITS가 실용적인 튜터링 효율에서 인간을 압도하게 된다면, 그 반작용으로 인간 교사들도 효율적인 교육 공학에 대해 더 많이 공부하게 되지 않을까요?
다만 AI 시대에 인간 교사의 역할에 대해서는 또 다른 차원의 큰 담론인 것 같습니다.