I’m finding myself struggling to relate to certain education writers that rely heavily on cognitive or learning research.

I have two such writers in mind recently, whose material I’ve been reading with great interest but who I think are misinterpreting something important about learning and education.

First: Greg Wilson, whom I know through his work in computer programming education. He works mostly with adults in the academic & scientific communities. I’ve read lots of his thoughts on how to teach programming. Beyond that, he’s a fascinating speaker.

Second: Greg Ashman, a veteran UK high school math teacher. His special focus, to boil down a range of very detailed and interesting posts from his blog, is

THE PROBLEM:

Both Greg Wilson & Greg Ashman occasionally lean too much on scientifically-established principles of learning to engineer methods of teaching.

I think there’s a gap between teaching (what a teacher, book, or other material presents to a student) and learning (how the student interprets and learns inside their mind).

I’m trying to put my finger on it.

Wilson example: from his Teaching Tech Together, (maybe something about structuring a problem so it aligns with 5 ±2 ?

Ashman example: from his blog. Four Ways Cognitive Load Theory has changed his teaching.

There are some important reasons that this is a terrible metaphor.

It assumes that all students with STEM aptitude will automatically stay…

IT is zero-sum with other fields, when of course.