Education isn’t natural – that’s why it’s hard

//Education isn’t natural – that’s why it’s hard

One of the most troubling conundrums in the field of education is that the common sense observation that children learn so many things simply by virtue of being immersed in an appropriate environment is contradicted by the overwhelming empirical data that explicit instruction outperforms discovery approaches in schools.

Why should this be? Surely if children can learn something as complex as speech without much effort, why do we need to go to the trouble of painstakingly teaching them phoneme/grapheme relationships? It’s hard to have some sympathy with the view that it would be better to just give them some appropriate reading material and let them work it out for themselves. But, there’s that pesky evidence suggesting that systematic synthetic phonics is a much better approach to early reading instruction than whole language approaches. If our guess and intuitions are contracted by scientific enquiry, then our guesses and intuitions are wrong. Clear as this is, it’s unsatisfying to hear that you’re wrong without a plausible explanation. And despite all the evidence supporting explicit instruction over discovery methods, a satisfying explanation was always missing.

Happily, there is an explanation and I hope you’ll find it satisfying. The evolutionary psychologist, David Geary draws a distinction between two different types of knowledge. The first, what he calls ‘biologically primary’ knowledge, is stuff which we have evolved to acquire easily. Learning how to cooperate with other people (folk psychology) understanding other species (folk biology) and inanimate objects (folk physics) all provide a clear evolutionary advantage and, over countless millennia, natural selection has shaped our brains to pick up this evolutionary ‘good tricks’ as efficiently as possible.

From Geary & Berch (2016)

The second kind of knowledge is ‘biologically secondary’. As well as ‘hard wiring’ our brains to rapidly learn the ‘folk disciplines’, nature has also made use of the brain’s natural plasticity to enable us to learn new – cultural – information which may prove useful to useful to us. The trouble is, although we can rewire our brains to learn culturally generated knowledge, it doesn’t come nearly as easily. The good news is that, with effort, our brains are more than capable of automatising secondary knowledge to the point where it can become effortless to use. The bad news is, we find it hard to get to this point.

This explains why we find it easy to learn to speak, but much more difficult to learn to read and write. Although these skills seems (and are) closely related, spoken language is ancient in its origins whilst literacy is a very recent cultural development and evolution is lagging far behind. This is why we need schools. “In contrast to universal folk knowledge, most of the knowledge taught in modern schools is culturally specific; that is, it does not emerge in the absence of formal instruction.” (p. 234) Schools exist to teach the hard stuff that children are unlikely to just pick up from their environments. As John Sweller acknowledges, “Since Geary’s formulation, it has become clear that theories like cognitive load theory apply solely to the biologically secondary knowledge for which schools and other educational institutions were invented.” (p. 215)

This is an incredibly useful framework for deciding what should be covered in a school curriculum. We should think carefully about whether what we are seeking to teach is biologically primary or secondary. If it’s a primary adaptation, then maybe we don’t need to teach it all as children will have an innate ability to pick it up from their environments. That said, maybe we don need to make sure that children’s environments are conducive to acquiring the folk knowledge we all take for granted. Just because the capacity to learn this stuff is innate, it doesn’t follow that we will learn it if we’re locked in a darkened room. This might provide an argument in favour of ‘play based’ approaches in Early Years to ensure all children are immersed in the kind of environment in which they pick up speech, group cooperation and a sense of self. But, if we’re tempted to teach these kinds of things explicitly later on in education we could be wasting our time. This is the argument I advance against a curriculum based around so-called ’21st century skills’.

As well as suggesting the degree we should be explicit in our instruction, Geary’s theories also tell us something important about motivation. We’re inherently motivated to learn knowledge which has an obvious evolutionary advantage. Few children have to be persuaded to socialise or mess about with objects – the tendency is part of being human. Similarly, few children are motivated to put in the effort required to learn to read without direction. As information diverges from its folk knowledge base, it becomes increasingly harder for us to wrap our heads around it. We easily fall prey to naive misconceptions and get frustrated at the tedious practice needed to master secondary knowledge. This is why schools need rules and well administered behaviour systems; without these things, children – especially teenagers – are likely to drift off into those activities which come more naturally are induce more pleasure such as chatting, twanging rulers, looking at cat pictures on the internet and trying to get off with each other.

Here are three ideas from Nick Rose, adapted from chapter 1 of What Every Teacher Needs To Know About Psychology, which all teachers might find useful:

  • A key idea in the psychology of learning is the ‘schema’. Learning new information requires secure foundations (schemas) of prior knowledge. There are likely to be some concepts, facts or ideas that are more ‘foundational’ than others.
  • How do students ‘select’ which schema to use when tackling questions or problems in lessons? Perhaps, as Geary implies, the more our subject relies upon biologically secondary knowledge, the more readily a student will rely upon a misconception based on their prior ‘folk knowledge’.
  • Our brains have adapted to readily recall stories, and this suggests we might use the structure of stories within a sequence of learning to make abstract content more memorable.

All this certainly gives the lie to the misconception that there’s ‘no best way’ to teach.

2018-01-10T20:18:14+00:00February 23rd, 2017|psychology|


  1. Robert Jones February 23, 2017 at 9:43 pm - Reply

    I find this very satisfying indeed – thank you David. I wonder where the line comes between biologically primary knowledge and biologically secondary knowledge in the domain of number? This seems an important question, because the answer would define the point at which effective teaching should switch from discovery/play based learning to more guided instruction.

    • Rita Ndagire Kizito February 24, 2017 at 5:15 am - Reply

      This is very interesting. Isn’t the concept of number part of secondary knowledge? However, there seems to be something intuitive and primary about the way individuals think about the way phenomena develop and change. Perhaps there is something primal about what the number represents.

    • David Didau February 24, 2017 at 3:51 pm - Reply

      We’d have to look at what numeric knowledge was universal across all cultures and what was culturally specific. That is the dividing line. My guess is that basic addition and subtraction of concrete objects (1, 2 , may etc.) is probably primary whereas numbers themselves are an abstraction which don’t occur in the real world. We also need to consider the level of abstraction. Multiplication of whole number is much less abstract than the multiplication of negative numbers. The principle should be, the greater the level of abstraction, the greater the need for explicit instruction.

  2. chrismwparsons February 23, 2017 at 10:04 pm - Reply

    I am a huge fan of this – both the explanatory power of the Biological Primary Knowledge thesis, and the power of building narratives to structure knowledge.

    Here’s an interesting thought though: If we are aiming to be an ‘evidence based’ profession, where does Geary’s thesis fit…?

    • Rita Ndagire Kizito February 24, 2017 at 5:19 am - Reply

      I think it fits quite well – we just need to show evidence of where there is demonstration of unsupported and supported learning, I believe.

    • David Didau February 24, 2017 at 3:52 pm - Reply

      Geary’s theory is based on solid life sciences research. His theory also generates a number of testable claims – some of which have been validated, others of which haven’t.

      • Michael pye February 24, 2017 at 4:58 pm - Reply

        Would you mind linking to which ideas have been supported and which have not.
        I’m not very familiar with the intricacies of his theory.

      • chrismwparsons February 24, 2017 at 5:55 pm - Reply

        Thank you David and Rita – I’m interested in the different ways in which we build-up an ‘evidential’ picture of something which in itself is too big for testing and the kinds of evidence we accept etc. I guess the very fact that I commended it for its “Explanatory Power” is a point in fact.

  3. […] Education isn’t natural – that’s why it’s hard (The Learning Spy) One of the most troubling conundrums in the field of education is that the common sense observation that children learn so many things by simply being immersed in an appropriate environment is contradicted by the overwhelming empirical data which suggested that explicit instruction outperforms discovery approaches in schools. […]

  4. suecowley February 24, 2017 at 6:48 pm - Reply

    Most children start to pick up the idea of working constructively in a group in the early years, and they tend to be okay at it, especially with adult guidance. However, they are only just beginning to learn it as this age, and some of them don’t really do it well at all, so it would seem to me that they would probably benefit from further practice as they get older. We encourage them to keep practising their speech to improve it, so I wonder why would we stop doing the same with cooperative skills. I’m not convinced they have a highly developed sense of self by 4 years old, either.

    • chrismwparsons February 24, 2017 at 10:22 pm - Reply

      There is a fair point here. It is one thing to be programmed to pick-up certain basic ways of thinking and functioning from our surrounding environment, and hence not to need to be taught them ‘from scratch’, but it is another to assume that these things will develop to the level of sophistication that we expect of them in modern culture on their own – particularly if we consider that some of the natural environment which children emerge into in our age is very different from the historical environment. (lack of direct care-giver contact, TVs and touch screens rapidly become the primary social links for children etc.).

  5. peter4logo (@peter4logo) March 25, 2017 at 8:53 pm - Reply

    I would support the main assumption that there are different kinds of “knowledge”. Some can easily be learned in everyday practice, others not.

    On the other hand I am not at all convinced that the notion of evolution is helpful to understand this difference. I’d suggest that it should be seen as a cultural difference through and through, not a biological one.

    1. The difference occurs between individuals, which share the same brain architecture – there is no evidence that the use of more abstract concepts occurs only in more “evolved” humans (which in fact just do not exist).
    2. To suggest an evolutionary aspect here opens the door to a kind of cultural racism, as some cultures could be seen as less evolved and as such biologically different, even “not as human as we are”.

    • David Didau March 25, 2017 at 9:26 pm - Reply

      I think you might have misunderstood the role of evolutionary biology here. I’m not at all suggesting that there are ‘more evolved’ humans. Quite the opposite. We’re all equally evolved but different cultures have developed different culturally specific knowledge which use the universally constant primary adaptions which all humans possess.

      • peter4logo (@peter4logo) March 26, 2017 at 6:05 pm - Reply

        Of course, David, I understand your point. But precisely because this interesting differences rather emerge from a given biology than “being” biological phenomena themselves, I find the labelling by Geary (et al.) quite misleading.

        I nonetheless think that the insights which you gained studying Geary and which you shared here are important anyway, whatever label one would attach to the different kinds of knowledge.

        • chrismwparsons March 26, 2017 at 10:43 pm - Reply

          I’m sorry Peter, but I find that comment quite incoherent. The biological bodies which we ALL inhabit have evolved to naturally learn a certain range of things from their predominant environment, without the need for structured education. Which bit of this argument is not clear?

  6. […] The problem with Schleicher’s views is that they ignore the findings of cognitive science, evolutionary psychology and, bizarrely, the results of his own organisations’ international assessments. If the OECD really wanted to focus on “policies that will improve the economic and social well-being of people around the world” then it should focus on research which tells us that generic skills can’t taught and what’s more are almost certainly innate anyway. […]

  7. […] Evolutionary psychology points to the fact that some things are easy for us to learn (biologically primary evolutionary adaptations) but some are hard (biologically secondary modules). So-called ’21st century skills’ are actually biologically primary adaptations and cannot be taught as generic skills. They are in fact domain-specific and rely on expertise in a domain in order to be exercised and developed. […]

  8. […] of a more elegant explanation it might be reasonable to think so, but the reasoning offered by David Geary’s theory of biologically primary adaptive modules of ‘folk knowledge’ and secondary modules of […]

  9. […] often focus on alliterative groupings such as “collaboration, creativity and connectivity”, (something we are evolved to do anyway) and are positioned in opposition with the cruelty of 20th century education which apparently was […]

  10. […] was Clare Sealey’s post that made me dig a bit deeper and really question this notion that there are two types of knowledge, one, called ‘biologically primary knowledge’ that we are supposedly evolved to learn […]

  11. […] When I say “love of learning” it’s important to distinguish between biologically primary and secondary modules. A love of biologically primary learning is probably a species-wide adaptation  and probably does […]

Constructive feedback is always appreciated

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: