{"id":6664360,"date":"2025-09-07T08:42:18","date_gmt":"2025-09-07T13:42:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/?p=6664360"},"modified":"2025-09-05T09:19:32","modified_gmt":"2025-09-05T14:19:32","slug":"the-shelf-life-of-research-when-education-theories-evolve","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/the-shelf-life-of-research-when-education-theories-evolve\/","title":{"rendered":"The Shelf-Life of Research: When Education Theories Evolve&#8230;"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>To most of us, research conclusions have an air of finality about them. If research shows that &#8230; say &#8230;   <a href=\"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/starting-class-with-prequestions-benefits-problems-solutions\/\" data-type=\"post\" data-id=\"6952\">prequestions help students learn<\/a>, well then: case closed. Teachers MUST start class with prequestions!<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>But wait&#8230;we have many reasons to push back against this kind of blunt finality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>We could have <em>other strategies that help more<\/em>: <strong>retrieval practice <\/strong>might provide more benefits than prequestions.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Perhaps prequestions help <em>these<\/em> students in <em>this discipline<\/em>: say &#8212; 6th graders learning science concepts. But they might not help 2nd graders practicing phonics.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>In some cases, initial research findings <em>don&#8217;t hold up over time<\/em>. I used to cite research about &#8220;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/i-take-it-all-back-research-on-expressive-writing-has-evolved\/\" data-type=\"post\" data-id=\"6662422\">expressive writing<\/a>,&#8221; but I&#8217;ve lost confidence in that suggestion because later studies don&#8217;t consistently support it.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>But there&#8217;s another crucial limitation we often overlook: <em>the theories themselves change over time<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Here&#8217;s the story.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Once Upon a Time<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Scientific researchers rarely arrive at theories in a single great leap. Instead, those theories build up incrementally: study after study, year after year, decade after decade.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In one well-known example: Dr. Carol Dweck started her research in the <strong>early 1970s<\/strong>. For most of the subsequent decades, she and her fellow researchers focused on &#8220;entity theorists&#8221; and &#8220;incremental theorists.&#8221; Only in the early 2000s did she rebrand to &#8220;Mindset.&#8221; That is:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>An &#8220;entity theorist&#8221; thinks that intelligence is a specific entity, a completed mental capacity. It can&#8217;t be changed. These days, we call that a &#8220;fixed mindset.&#8221;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>An &#8220;incremental theorist&#8221; thinks that intelligence can change incrementally. It&#8217;s not complete. Today, we talk about a &#8220;growth mindset.&#8221;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Dweck took, quite literally, <em>more than 30 years<\/em> to develop the theory to the point that we recognize it today. And since the publication of her book &#8212; almost 20 years ago now!! &#8212; she has developed it still further.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In other words: mindset theory circa 2005 differs meaningfully from mindset theory circa 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Crucially, this evolution does not mean that Dweck has done anything wrong. Instead, she and her colleagues have been doing what they <em>should<\/em> be doing. They have a hypothesis; they test it; they adjust the theory based on the results. That updated theory in turn prompts a <em>new <\/em>hypothesis, so Team Dweck repeats the cycle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The evolution of these theories isn&#8217;t a <em>bug <\/em>in the system; it&#8217;s a <em>feature <\/em>of the system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Buggy Features<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Although I&#8217;ve described this evolution as a feature (not a bug), this feature does allow for some bugs to creep into advice based on theories. A recent example comes quickly to mind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><img decoding=\"async\" width=\"1024\" height=\"574\" src=\"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AdobeStock_1648790332-1024x574.jpeg\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-6664520\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AdobeStock_1648790332-1024x574.jpeg 1024w, https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AdobeStock_1648790332-300x168.jpeg 300w, https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AdobeStock_1648790332-768x430.jpeg 768w, https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AdobeStock_1648790332-1536x861.jpeg 1536w, https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/AdobeStock_1648790332-2048x1148.jpeg 2048w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Cognitive load theory<em> <\/em><\/strong>helps many thinkers organize their ideas about <em>working memory <\/em>in the classroom. (In my view, few topics could be more important than working memory in the classroom.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For all the normal reasons, cognitive load theory has evolved over time. For instance, it used to distinguish among &#8220;intrinsic load,&#8221; &#8220;extrinsic load,&#8221; and &#8220;germane load.&#8221; <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>However, in recent years, the scholars who have championed the theory have removed &#8220;germane load&#8221; from the theoretical framework. It now focuses on &#8220;intrinsic&#8221; and &#8220;extrinsic&#8221; only. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The reasons for the change don&#8217;t really matter here. What does matter is: cognitive load theory in 2025 doesn&#8217;t say exactly what it did in 2015 &#8212; and <em>this kind of change is normal<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">What to Do?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>This insight &#8212; &#8220;theories do change over time&#8221; &#8212; offers at least two practical suggestion to teachers and school leaders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>FIRST: Evaluate <strong>your own <\/strong>understanding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>That is: if you&#8217;re thinking about going all in on a particular theory, be sure you&#8217;re planning to enact its <em>most up-to-date <\/em>version.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In the case of growth mindset, you might start by reading Dweck&#8217;s book to understand this foundational text. At the same time, you will no doubt notice that the book was written almost 20 years ago. Next step: take time to see what&#8217;s happened to the theory since then.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In the case of mindset, this investigation should be fairly simple. LOTS of people have written books on growth mindset, and research in this field regularly gets attention.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In other cases, double-checking the currency of your information might require some creative sleuthing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For instance, I asked Claude (the LLM) how Mindset Theory and Cognitive Load Theory have changed over the years; in both cases, Claude&#8217;s answer hit the revelant highlights. No doubt other strategies can help you navigate this kind of research history.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Features and Filters<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>A SECOND practical suggestion also arises from this insight: use it to evaluate the &#8220;research-based&#8221; advice you hear <strong>from someone else<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>That is: if a PD speaker says &#8220;cognitive load theory tells you to do XYZ to manage your students&#8217; germane load,&#8221; you&#8217;ve gained an important data point. Although you might find cognitive load theory itself persuasive, you probably shouldn&#8217;t take this speaker&#8217;s advice about it &#8212; because his\/her understanding of the theory is <em>more than five years out of date<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In other words: our understanding that theories evolve helps us filter out advice from self-styled experts whose understanding stops with a long-ago version of the theory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>To be fair, I could become <em>overly <\/em>obsessed with having the very most recent update. Few people can be fully current on all the nuances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>But if a PD speaker says that &#8220;a growth mindset is <em>all about effort<\/em>,&#8221; that&#8217;s a (mis)interpretation that Dweck has corrected many times. (The thoughtful <em>quality <\/em>of the effort, and focus on the <em>process<\/em>, matter more that sheer determination.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">TL;DR<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Because educatation is complicated, research-based theories about education are complicated &#8212; and they change over time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>To ensure that our students benefit from the work we do, we need to make sure that our own mental models haven&#8217;t gone beyond their expiration dates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>To most of us, research conclusions have an air of finality about them. If research shows that &#8230; say &#8230; prequestions help students learn, well then: case closed. Teachers MUST start class with prequestions! But wait&#8230;we have many reasons to push back against this kind of blunt finality. But there&#8217;s another crucial limitation we often [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":18,"featured_media":6664520,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[28,19],"class_list":["post-6664360","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lb-blog","tag-methodology","tag-skepticism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6664360","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=6664360"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6664360\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6664521,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6664360\/revisions\/6664521"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6664520"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6664360"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6664360"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6664360"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}