In contemporary discourse on education, evidence-based practices are often heralded as the gold standard for improving learning outcomes. Borrowing from the methodologies of medicine, this approach emphasizes measurable results, rigorous testing, and repeatable interventions. However, education—unlike medicine—is deeply intertwined with human values, creativity, and socio-political dynamics. Scholars like Gert Biesta and Yong Zhao argue that the application of evidence-based practices in education overlooks its inherent complexity, potentially stifling curiosity, creativity, and long-term engagement.
This article is based on the following video; There Is No Such Thing As “The Science of Learning”
Education is Not Medicine
In medicine, evidence-based approaches focus on controlled environments and clear, replicable outcomes. For instance, clinical trials reduce variables to measure the effectiveness of treatments with precision. While this model works for the human body, education involves individuals with diverse backgrounds, motivations, and ways of making sense of the world. Yong Zhao aptly illustrates this distinction by pointing out that direct instruction, though effective in transmitting knowledge, often carries unintended side effects. These include reduced creativity, engagement, and intrinsic motivation. Zhao’s analogy to SSRIs in medicine—useful for some but with significant drawbacks for others—emphasizes the need for a nuanced understanding of educational practices.
The Unintended Consequences of Evidence-Based Practices
Evidence-based practices in education tend to prioritize short-term gains, such as improved test scores or increased recall, over fostering deeper conceptual understanding and curiosity. A 2012 study highlighted this issue by describing “unproductive success,” where students exposed to direct instruction excelled in well-structured problems but faltered when faced with tasks requiring creativity and problem-solving. Similarly, a 2015 Gallup report found alarming declines in student engagement from elementary to high school, with only 34% of seniors feeling engaged by their final year. The rigid application of evidence-based interventions risks prioritizing efficiency over the holistic development of learners.
Gert Biesta’s concept of “complexity reduction” sheds light on why this happens. Schools often simplify learning processes to fit predefined standards, curricula, and assessments. This reductionist approach transforms education into a closed system of inputs and outputs, undermining its broader purpose as an open, recursive process of sense-making. The result is a system that may improve measurable outcomes in the short term but fails to cultivate curiosity, creativity, and lifelong learning.
Curiosity: A Casualty of Efficiency
Research by Dr. Susan Engel highlights a stark decline in student curiosity over time. Children aged 14 months to 5 years ask an average of 107 questions per hour. By fifth grade, this number drops dramatically, with students asking only two to five questions during a two-hour period. This decline is exacerbated by educational systems that prioritize rote memorization and standardized testing. A 2018 study led by Prachi Shah found that curiosity, particularly among economically disadvantaged students, strongly correlates with academic success. Yet, this potential remains underemphasized in policy discussions dominated by evidence-based strategies.
Promoting curiosity, Zhao argues, is essential to bridging achievement gaps and fostering meaningful learning. However, the focus on short-term gains often sidelines such long-term goals. As Paul Howard-Jones from Bristol University asserts, schools need to create space for curious questioning, even if it challenges traditional notions of classroom management and efficiency.
Education as a Value-Laden Process
Gert Biesta reminds us that education is not merely a technical process of applying what works. Instead, it is a moral and political practice shaped by collective values and power dynamics. Decisions about school policies—from curriculum design to assessment methods—reflect societal priorities. For instance, why is classical music often studied for its cognitive benefits while other genres are ignored? Why are interventions aimed at test score improvements prioritized over fostering community engagement or intrinsic motivation?
Biesta argues that evidence-based approaches reduce the rich, multifaceted nature of education to a series of technical judgments. This focus on measurable outcomes overlooks the value of relationships, creativity, and engagement—elements that cannot be easily quantified but are essential to meaningful learning. By framing education as a moral practice, Biesta challenges us to consider what kind of learning experiences we want to create and for whom.
Bridging the Gap: Toward a Holistic Pedagogy
Both Zhao and Biesta call for a balanced approach that integrates evidence-based practices with an understanding of education’s broader purposes. This involves:
- Acknowledging Side Effects: Just as medications are evaluated for both effectiveness and side effects, educational practices must be assessed for their unintended consequences. For example, while direct instruction may boost test scores, it should not come at the expense of curiosity and creativity.
- Fostering Curiosity and Engagement: Research shows that curiosity-driven learning leads to better outcomes, especially for disadvantaged students. Schools should create environments that encourage questioning and exploration, even if this disrupts traditional classroom structures.
- Emphasizing Relationships and Context: Effective teaching requires understanding the unique needs and contexts of learners. This means building relationships, adapting strategies to individual students, and valuing engagement and motivation alongside measurable outcomes.
- Challenging Reductionism: Policymakers and educators must resist the urge to simplify education into a series of inputs and outputs. Instead, they should embrace its complexity and recognize the moral and political dimensions of their decisions.
Conclusion
Education, as Zhao and Biesta remind us, is far more than a science of what works. It is an art of balancing effectiveness with values, short-term gains with long-term development, and efficiency with creativity. By moving beyond the limitations of evidence-based practices, we can build a pedagogy that not only transmits knowledge but also inspires curiosity, fosters engagement, and equips learners to navigate an ever-changing world. The challenge is not just to teach but to create spaces where students can thrive as curious, motivated, and creative individuals.