11 Harmful Myths About How We Learn

Learning happens. Everyone picks up information at their own individual pace, yet myths painting different demographics and techniques with a broad brush still creep their way into classrooms and the public consciousness alike. Feeding into them, however, proves exceptionally problematic to child and adult students hoping to eke through life with the skills they need to accomplish their goals. Parents, administrators, faculty, and even the students themselves might want to start chipping away at the following misconceptions first.

1. Females are inherently worse at math than males: Science knows full well that gender holds absolutely no influence over math skills, yet overarching perceptions still assert that the ladies aren’t nearly as adroit in its tenets as men. University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Janet Hyde spent nearly two decades studying the phenomenon, proving the lack of correlation with more than a million participants. The danger here is quite obvious. Hammering alleged biological inadequacies into young girls’ heads will serve as a self-fulfilling prophecy compromising their grades and future careers alike.
   
2. People with learning disabilities are of below-average intelligence: As University of Hawaii points out, learning disabilities only appear in individuals (of any age) of average to above-average intelligence; anything involving mental aptitude falls under a different definition entirely. Learning-disabled students actually hold a gifted rate around 33%, completely defying the unfortunate prevailing opinion. Once again, parents, teachers, administrators, and peers who adhere to this mindset only pile on the social anxiety, rendering it more difficult for them to succeed — even with all the tools necessary to help them get ahead. If they grow up thinking they’re somehow inferior, they might never strive toward being the best they can in the classroom, office, and beyond.
   
3. Children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are inherently poor achievers with little intelligence: Because up to 70% of a person’s behavior is determined by nurture rather than nature, it’s irresponsible — not to mention discriminatory — to act as if kids, teens, and adults from lower socioeconomic brackets genetically possess lower intelligence. Environmental factors play the most prominent role in the lower test scores educators, politicians, and parents use to illustrate impoverished kids’ alleged inadequacy. Poor performers may bring home report cards reflecting bad nutrition, exhaustion and stress from work and/or family demands, or other stimuli. Acting as if their very real problems only indicate stupidity creates a terrible, unjust cycle of suppression and denial of wonderful opportunities.
   
4. Lecture learning is always the way to go: Yes, lectures most assuredly hold a place in education — nobody’s asking for schools to entirely dismantle the concept and stuff it into storage. But they aren’t the be-all, end-all techniques for getting students learning, either. Experts find the passive element disconcerting, but not nearly as much as how exclusive adherence to lecture-based learning takes such a "one-size-fits-all" stance. Different people process information in different ways, and the most effective classrooms blend together strategies and activities meant to engage everyone.
   
5. Rote learning is the devil/Rote learning will save us all: Honestly, both demonizing and evangelizing rote learning cause roughly equal amounts of damage. Balance, as in most areas of life, proves key when navigating this volatile education controversy. Some students and subjects greatly benefit from the repetitive memorization approach, so calling for its demise isn’t responsible. But touting it as the greatest learning technique since, well, ever is equally detrimental. The trick is in finding rote learning’s proper place and relationships with other strategies.
   
6. Standardized testing is an accurate measure of a school’s abilities: No Child Left Behind dishes out finding based on how schools perform on standardized testing, with higher scores meaning more money. The problem here is that support typically ends up going toward institutions in wealthier areas. Experienced teachers tend to gravitate toward these, and students enjoy far more access to learning enhancement technologies in the classroom and at home. Because intelligence and socioeconomic status do not inherently impact one another, all the legislation does is hand out rewards based on what’s available in the classroom. This creates a saddening cycle where economically deprived students do not receive equal opportunities before, during, and after their education wraps up — thereby perpetuating the nauseating myths that they don’t deserve anything because they’re just not smart enough.
   

Read More...