Discover more from Andrew Old's Education Battleground
Can we reject an idea for being too simple?
Avril Lavigne once asked: "Why'd you have to go and make things so complicated?" Alfie Kohn should answer that question.
Last month, progressive education writer Alfie Kohn wrote a blog post about cognitive load theory (CLT). The first sentence indicates where Kohn stands:
A remarkable body of research over many years has demonstrated that the sort of teaching in which students are provided with answers or shown the correct way to do something — where they’re basically seen as empty receptacles to be filled with facts or skills — tends to be much less effective than some variant of student-centered learning that involves inquiry or discovery, in which students play an active role in constructing meaning for themselves and with one another.
The claim about “a remarkable body of research” is supported by sources showing that many people have argued for student-centred or discovery-based learning, without acknowledging that many have also argued against the same ideas. The existence of a debate does not mean that one side cannot be objectively right, and the other objectively wrong. However, Kohn gives no real justification for recognising only one side of the argument. This is most conspicuous when he cites “a comprehensive review of the evidence in STEM fields that was published in 2023 [written by] an international group of 13 researchers” without mentioning that it is a response to another paper that reached opposite conclusions. Nor does he acknowledge that some of the original paper's authors replied to that “review” in another paper. It is possible to read both sides of a debate, and think that only one has any substance. However, I think it shows obvious bad faith to present one side of a debate as representative of what the research shows as if the other side did not exist.
The reason for this apparent dishonesty becomes clear, as the post turns to Cognitive Load Theory (CLT). CLT explores the importance of working memory in instructional design. In Kohn’s post, CLT is presented as a response to ideas about student-centred instruction and discovery learning, rather than an attempt to study the application of concepts from psychology to instruction. By framing CLT as a debating ploy rather than an area of scientific study, Kohn can attack CLT for its failures as “a persuasive rationale for explicit instruction”. Thus, the theorists of Cognitive Load are criticised for such sins as revising their ideas over time; making inferences from experimental results, and providing accounts that are, “only a partial truth”. Kohn may be right that these are poor practices for those seeking to win a debate (although the third of these sounds very much like a feature of his strongest arguments). Nevertheless, these practices seem like unexceptional, even desirable, behaviours in scientific researchers.
However, I don’t want to dig deeper into the general debate about CLT (or discovery learning). Some interesting attempts to do that can be found here and here. There is just one point I want to address, and it’s this one:
Even [CLT’s] account of discrete acts of learning are greatly oversimplified. … CLT flattens learning and problem-solving into a mechanical process of taking in information, holding it briefly in short-term memory, and then storing it permanently in long-term memory, with the last step described, remarkably, as “the ultimate justification for instruction.”
The theory includes questionable premises about the role of working memory in particular. First, cognitive load probably isn’t a single phenomenon that varies only by degree; rather, different tasks may result in different types of load. Second, some learning apparently doesn’t require any extra working memory. In many cases, we learn continuously, from multiple sources, and without even being aware of it. (When we do learn something by rote, it may not remain in long-term memory, particularly if we don’t use it.) Because CLT’s account is, at best, only a partial truth and therefore misleading, it fails to justify the conclusion that learners can’t handle anything other than formal, explicit instruction.
This is not the first time I have seen theories rejected for being simplistic, and criticised for what is left out rather than what is included. The most common form of this argument is probably the claim that someone’s ideas or opinions lack “nuance”. Yet, it is far from clear that nuance is always necessary or desirable. A memorable sociology paper by Kieran Healey argued that:
…demanding more nuance typically obstructs the development of theory that is intellectually interesting, empirically generative, or practically successful.
As teachers, we typically withhold some of the nuances of what we teach to allow our pupils to understand the "unnuanced” ideas first.1 If Cognitive Load Theory (or cognitive psychology in general) allows us to understand how learning usually happens, then the exceptions may not be important. A scientific theory that makes good predictions is still important, even if later, more nuanced theories, improve on it in some circumstances. Newtonian mechanics remain useful, even though certain circumstances require more nuanced ideas, such as General Relativity. We do not require teachers to have a PhD in psychology to teach a class, any more than we need engineers to have a PhD in pure mathematics to calculate whether a beam will break. If “simplistic” ideas from CLT can be used to make reliable predictions about the effectiveness of teaching, then that would be a good thing. In fact, for an activity such as teaching, where many decisions have to be made, often in very little time, simplicity is a desirable quality in theories that aid those decisions. I suspect that most teachers would prefer to have a rough idea of what will work most of the time, rather than be given exhaustive details about the complexities of every lesson.2
My argument so far has assumed that a nuanced theory is more accurate than a simplistic one, although we might still prefer the simpler theory for practical purposes. However, this cannot be assumed. Being complicated does not guarantee a theory is correct. Anyone who has tried to wade through Das Kapital should be aware that a theory can be complex and wrong. A simpler theory is not necessarily inferior, and cannot be rejected because it is simple. The claim that simplistic ideas should be rejected is self-refuting. This is because it is, itself, simplistic. The more nuanced position is that sometimes simpler ideas are better, and sometimes they are not. We need to judge theories by many criteria, not just their level of complexity.3 So, if one argues that we should reject simpler ideas, one would have no choice but to reject the idea that we should reject simpler ideas.
In this case, I am far from convinced that Kohn’s nuances suggest anything more accurate than the ideas to which he objects. Is it remarkable that storing information in long-term memory is given as the ultimate justification for instruction? It seems only to be expected if one a) views learning as the purpose of instruction and b) considers learning to be a change in long-term memory. Or are we meant to be surprised that some people believe a) and b)? If learning is not the purpose of instruction, then what is? And if learning is something other than a change in long-term memory, what is it? If Kohn has answers to these questions, he does not state them explicitly. At the very least, I am confident that if he does have answers to those questions, they would be disputed by more than just CLT advocates.4 If the account of learning used by CLT is incorrect, that would be useful to know. If the account of learning used by CLT is simplistic, that tells us nothing about its validity.
Attacking CLT seems to have become a backdoor way of rejecting some well-established psychological theories without suggesting alternative theories. As teachers, we should be careful not to claim we are using “Cognitive Load Theory” when merely acknowledging some of the most uncontroversial ideas in cognitive psychology. If we are careless about where useful ideas come from, this will be used to muddy the waters about the evidence for those ideas.
I suspect that CLT can tell us why this works.
Again, I suspect CLT can explain why too much information can make decision-making more difficult.
I doubt Kohn genuinely believes that simplistic ideas should always be rejected. The opening paragraphs of his post are as notable for their lack of nuance as their lack of honesty, yet it seems unlikely he would reject his own unnuanced ideas.
As for his suggestion that “some learning apparently doesn’t require any extra working memory” I hope to explore this in another post.
Subscribe to Andrew Old's Education Battleground
A teacher in England discussing education and its inevitable conflicts
Mr. Old:
This is a wonderful post! I wanted to mention that I contacted Mr. Kohn a few weeks ago about his anti-CLT piece, and he and I had a very respectful back-and-forth over a few emails. He didn't seem convinced by anything I said, and I wasn't very convinced of his ideas, but it was a pleasant exchange. One thing that most surprised me was his insistence that the revision of CLT over time is unreasonable. He cited the addition of the concept of "germane load" as particularly egregious. He was very skeptical of my claim that many CLT researchers (including John Sweller and Greg Ashman), upon further analysis, have now largely rejected the idea that "germane load" is independent from "intrinsic load."
Mr. Kohn, as far as I can tell, is very reticent to define "learning," instead viewing the entire concept of "learning" and the entire "education system" as things that should be defined on a school-by-school, teacher-by-teacher, student-by-student, and family-by-family basis. Due to this, he rejects any attempts to define and/or measure learning. I can see where he is coming from, but I think he is misguided, as learning measured objectively appears to predict quite well future success in life across a very wide variety of measures (income, likelihood of being incarcerated, likelihood of being chronically employed...and the list goes on, as I'm sure you know).
Mr. Kohn's general goals and worldview seem to be idealistic rather than practical. The entire concept that I (and, as I can gather, you as well -- though please correct me if I am wrong) believe is that education should prepare students to be functional and successful members of society. Mr. Kohn appears to view education as an entirely personal endeavor with no shared goal.
At this point, I'm just rambling, but I suppose what I want to express is that Alfie Kohn seems to approach the field of education from a perspective that is entirely incompatible with that held by you, me, and many others. I'm not sure what to do about that.