If Geary’s correct, his theory helps answer a persistent question in education:<\/p>\n
Why don’t students love learning X as much as they loved learning to climb trees\/play games\/mimic siblings\/build stick forts\/etc.?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This question usually implies that schools are doing something wrong.<\/p>\n
“If only we didn’t get in the way<\/em> of their natural curiosity,” the question implies, “children would love X as much as those other things.”<\/p>\nGeary’s answer is: playing games is biologically primary<\/em>, doing X is biologically secondary<\/em>.<\/p>\nWe evolved<\/em> to be motivated to play games. Our genes, in effect, “want” us to do that.<\/p>\nWe did not<\/strong> evolve<\/em> to learn calculus. Our culture, in effect, “wants” us to do that. But cultural motivations can’t match the power of genetic ones.<\/p>\nIn effect, Geary’s argument allows teachers to stop beating ourselves up so much. We shouldn’t feel like terrible people because our students don’t revel in the topics we teach.<\/p>\n
Schools focus on biologically secondary topics. Those will always be less intrinsically motivating (on average) than biologically primary ones.<\/p>\n
Implications: Cognitive Load<\/h2>\n
A second theory — cognitive load theory<\/strong>\u00a0(CLT) — has been getting increasing attention in recent months and years.<\/p>\nCLT helps explain the role of working memory in human cognition. (Frequent readers know: I think working memory is\u00a0the<\/em> essential topic for teachers to understand.)<\/p>\nIn recent years, CLT’s founders have connected their theory to Geary’s work on biologically primary\/secondary learning.<\/p>\n
That connection takes too much time to explain here. But, if you’re interested in cognitive load, be aware that Geary’s work might be hovering in the background.<\/p>\n
Watch this space.<\/p>\n
Reactions<\/h2>\n
Some scholars just love the analytical power provided by the distinction between biologically primary and secondary learning.<\/p>\n
Paul Kirschner (twitter handle: @P_A_Kirschner), for instance, speaks of Geary’s theory with genuine admiration. (In one interview I read, he wished he’d thought of it himself.)<\/p>\n
Others: not so much.<\/p>\n
Christian Bokhove (twitter handle: @cbokhove), for instance, worries that the theory hasn’t been tested and can’t be<\/em> tested. (Geary cites research that plausibly aligns<\/em> with his argument. But, like many evolutionary theories, it’s hard to test directly.)<\/p>\nI myself am drawn to this framework — in part because evolutionary arguments make lots of sense to me. I do however worry about the lack of more evidence.<\/p>\n
And: I’m puzzled that so little work has been done with the theory since it was first published in 2007. If it makes so much sense to me (a non-specialist), why haven’t other specialists picked up the topic and run with it?<\/p>\n
For the time being, I think teachers should at least know about this theory.<\/p>\n
You might start considering your students’ interests and motivations in this light — perhaps Geary’s distinction will offer a helpful perspective.<\/p>\n
And, I don’t doubt that — as cognitive load theory gets more attention — the distinction between biologically primary and secondary learning will be more and more a part of teacherly conversations.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Usually I blog about specific research findings that inform education. Today — to mix things up — I thought it would be helpful to talk about an under-discussed theory pertinent to education. This theory helps us at least two ways: First: it gives useful insights into student\u00a0motivation. (Teachers want to know everything we can know […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":18,"featured_media":5912,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[36,24,30],"class_list":["post-5908","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lb-blog","tag-evolution","tag-motivation","tag-working-memory"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5908","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/18"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5908"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5908\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5917,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5908\/revisions\/5917"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5912"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5908"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5908"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5908"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/braindevs.net\/blog\/\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/AdobeStock_276220369_Credit.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n