Avoiding Confirmation Bias in Education: A guide for Teachers

As educators, we constantly encounter new ideas and methods. It’s easy to stick to one side of a debate and dismiss other views. This approach is harmful. The discussion about assessment in maths education shows why we need to be particularly open-minded about avoiding confirmation bias in education. Teaching is also a learning journey for us!

Teachers, Avoid Confirmation Bias!

As educators, we are constantly bombarded with new ideas, theories, and methodologies. Amidst this sea of information, it’s easy to fall into the trap of tribalism, clinging dogmatically to one side of the debate while dismissing opposing viewpoints.

This approach is not only unproductive but also harmful to our profession. The ongoing discussion about assessment in mathematics education illustrates the importance of embracing nuance and open-mindedness in our educational practices. After all, if there’s one thing I know about teaching, it’s that as a teacher I am still a learner!

A Quick Note About Avoiding Confirmation Bias in Education

Confirmation bias in education can pose significant challenges, particularly when teachers are exposed only to evidence that supports their preferred pedagogical approaches. This cognitive bias leads educators to selectively absorb information that aligns with their pre-existing beliefs about teaching methods, while dismissing or undervaluing conflicting evidence.

Such a narrowed perspective not only hinders professional growth but can also impact student outcomes. Teachers may overlook innovative practices that could better address the varied learning needs of their students. To foster a more balanced and effective educational environment, it is crucial for teachers to remain open to diverse research findings and continuously question and refine their pedagogical choices.

This vigilance against confirmation bias ensures that educational practices are both evidence-informed and adaptable, ultimately benefiting the broader educational landscape.

We Need to Talk About Reification

Reification in education refers to taking abstract concepts, such as intelligence, achievement, or learning, and treating them as tangible objects. In “10 Things Schools Get Wrong: And How We Can Get Them Right” by David Bott and Jared Cooney Horvath (2020), the authors discuss how this process can lead to rigid and limited thinking.

Reification can negatively impact both teaching and learning by promoting a fixed mindset and reducing flexibility in educational approaches. 

When educational systems reify these abstract concepts, they often fail to capture the dynamic and multifaceted nature of student learning and potential. This not only restricts students’ academic and personal growth but also narrows the definition of success to rigid, often superficial metrics.

We must resist the urge to value only what we can measure. Or at least, concepts that are easier to measure. This reminds me of a fantastic quote often attributed to Einstein, ““Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted.”

To truly measure success in education, we must adopt a more holistic and flexible approach, recognizing the evolving and diverse capabilities of each student. This is no easy feat, but having the conversation is a great place to start.

Being Aware of How We Measure Success

The evidence we gather to measure success in education can be misleading and potentially harmful if not critically examined. In a recent article, Alfie Kohn highlights the pitfalls of relying too heavily on phrases like “evidence-based” and “the science of…” to justify certain educational practices.

Kohn argues that these terms often raise more questions than they answer, leading to several distinct concerns:

• What Kind of Evidence? Some take an extreme, reductionist view of data, dismissing anything that can’t be reduced to numbers. This emphasises the arguments above around reification. This narrow focus also ignores the complexity of human learning, which includes motivation and cultural context.
• Evidence of What? Often, “effective” instruction is measured by standardised test scores or rote memorization, which may not truly reflect meaningful learning or understanding.
• Evidence of an Effect on Whom? Benefits shown for specific subsets of students may not apply universally.
• Evidence of an Effect at What Cost? Narrowly focusing on measurable outcomes can alienate students and sap their interest in learning, leading to unintended harmful consequences.
• Does “Evidence-Based” Refer to Evidence at All? Sometimes, the term “evidence-based” is used more as a slogan to silence dissent rather than to invite critical discussion.

Examples of each of these:

Let’s use the theme of simplifying fractions to provide an example of what each might look like in the wild.

1. What Kind of Evidence?

When teaching students to simplify fractions, a teacher might rely solely on raw test scores immediately after the topic is learnt to gauge understanding.

However, this reductionist approach ignores the students’ motivation, cultural context and ability to retain the understanding. For instance, some students might understand the concept deeply but perform poorly under test conditions due to test anxiety or cultural differences in how they approach learning and assessment.

2. Evidence of What?

If “effective” instruction in simplifying fractions is measured purely by how well students can perform the procedure on standardised tests, this might not reflect true understanding.

Students might memorise steps without grasping why they work. A student might score high on tests but be unable to apply the concept to real-life situations, such as adjusting a recipe.

3. Evidence of an Effect on Whom?

Research might show that a particular method of teaching fractions works well for a certain subset of students, such as those in a high-resource environment with lots of support at home.

However, this method might not be effective for students in a different context, such as those in under-resourced schools or with less support outside of school, showing that the results are not universally applicable.

4. Evidence of an Effect at What Cost?

A narrow focus on measurable outcomes like simplifying fractions correctly can lead to students feeling alienated if they struggle with the concept. This might cause them to develop a negative attitude towards maths as a whole.

For example, a student who finds fractions difficult might become disinterested in maths altogether if the emphasis is solely on getting the right answer rather than understanding the process.

5. Does “Evidence-Based” Refer to Evidence at All?

An educational program might claim to be “evidence-based” in teaching fractions, using this label to silence critics. However, a closer look might reveal that the evidence supporting the program is not robust or relevant.

For instance, the program might be based on outdated studies or data that do not apply to the current student population or learning environment.

By examining these practical examples in the context of simplifying fractions, we can better understand the complexities and pitfalls of relying too heavily on narrow definitions of evidence in education.

Moving Forward with a Balanced Approach For Avoiding Confirmation Bias In Education

Both theory and practice have their place in education. We must navigate the space between them with nuance and openness. The danger of tribalism in education cannot be overstated. When entrenched in our own beliefs and ideologies, we close ourselves off to alternative perspectives, hindering our professional growth.

It’s important to realize we all have an inherent bias towards finding evidence that supports our current practices. There is no one-size-fits-all model in education. Instead of searching for a universal solution, we should focus on understanding the unique needs and circumstances of our students and adapt our teaching accordingly.

Embracing Holistic Assessments

While exams and standardized testing have their place, the misuse and overconfidence in these measures can be problematic. Teachers must remember they have agency in their classrooms. Good assessment practices will reveal the valuable thinking that students do.

For these alternatives to be considered, we must be comfortable calling out flawed statistical decision-making, such as what the McNamara Fallacy describes. We should critically analyze educational research, considering its context, limitations, and implications.

By doing so, we can develop a more holistic understanding of teaching and learning that respects the complexity and individuality of each student.

Moving Forward… Together

So, where to now? We must commit to being open-minded and flexible in our teaching practices. By avoiding dogmatism and embracing a nuanced approach, we can better serve our students and foster a more inclusive and effective educational environment.

Let’s strive to create classrooms where evidence informs practice, but the individuality of each student is always at the forefront of our efforts. Embracing the nuances of education, recognizing the limitations of our assessments, being aware of the dangers of confirmation bias in education and being open to alternative perspectives will ultimately lead to a richer, more effective experience for all of our students.