The Alluring Yet Risky Call of “Evidence-Based” Instruction: An Alfie Kohn Perspective

By Alfie Kohn – Expert Content Creator at payoffsong.com

As someone deeply immersed in the world of education and content creation, particularly at payoffsong.com, I, like Alfie Kohn, find myself both drawn to and increasingly wary of the pervasive use of the term “evidence-based” in discussions about teaching methods. Initially, the idea of grounding educational practices in solid research seems undeniably appealing. After all, who wouldn’t want decisions in education to be informed by rigorous data rather than fleeting trends or personal biases? Similar to how Alfie Kohn, a respected figure in education and human behavior, eagerly anticipates the arrival of journals filled with insights from psychology and education, I too value the role of research in shaping effective strategies.

However, a closer examination, much like Kohn’s insightful critiques, reveals that the enthusiastic embrace of “evidence-based” instruction is not without its complexities and potential pitfalls. The siren song of “evidence-based” can be deceptively alluring, promising a scientific and foolproof approach to education. Yet, as Alfie Kohn expertly articulates, this approach often oversimplifies the multifaceted nature of learning and teaching, potentially overlooking crucial elements in the process. Drawing inspiration from Kohn’s critical lens, let’s delve into a more nuanced understanding of what “evidence-based” truly means in education and explore the critical questions we must ask before fully subscribing to its dictates. This exploration, much like Kohn’s work, aims to foster a more thoughtful and comprehensive dialogue about how we can best support learning and development, moving beyond simplistic labels and embracing the rich complexity of the educational landscape.

Deconstructing “Evidence-Based”: Five Critical Questions Inspired by Alfie Kohn

Alfie Kohn, in his insightful blog post, raises five pivotal questions that serve as crucial filters through which we should examine any claim of “evidence-based” instruction. These questions, far from dismissing the value of research, encourage a more sophisticated and critical engagement with it, ensuring that we are not swayed by the mere label but by a genuine understanding of what the evidence truly represents.

1. What Kind of Evidence Are We Talking About?

The first, and perhaps most fundamental question, as Alfie Kohn points out, is about the very nature of the evidence being presented. While a respect for data is essential to avoid being misled by personal anecdotes or unsubstantiated claims, it’s crucial to recognize that not all data is created equal, and not all forms of evidence are equally valued. The push for “evidence-based” practices often inadvertently, or even intentionally, narrows the definition of evidence to what is easily quantifiable, often neglecting qualitative data, subjective experiences, and the rich tapestry of human learning that resists simple numerical reduction.

As Kohn aptly notes, focusing solely on what can be “reduced to numbers” leads to a “shallow understanding” of education. This reductionist approach often overlooks crucial aspects such as student motivation, the social nature of learning, and the influence of cultural contexts – elements that are difficult to measure through standardized metrics but are undeniably vital to meaningful education. When discussions around the “science of reading” or the “science of learning” prioritize easily measurable outcomes like phonics skills or test scores while marginalizing intrinsic motivation and the joy of discovery, we risk missing the forest for the trees. The evidence should be broad and encompass diverse forms of data that capture the complexity of the learning process, mirroring Kohn’s call for a more holistic understanding of education.

2. Evidence of What Exactly? Defining “Effective” in Education

When someone proclaims that “science” has definitively proven one instructional strategy to be superior, the immediate question, echoing Alfie Kohn’s concern, should be: “Effective in achieving what outcomes?” The term “effective,” and its related synonyms like “higher achievement,” “positive outcomes,” and “better results,” are frequently used without clear definition, often masking a narrow and potentially detrimental focus.

Too often, “effectiveness” is operationalized as improved scores on standardized tests, rote memorization of facts, or the ability to produce correct answers in isolated exercises, as Kohn illustrates with examples from math and reading instruction. While these metrics are easily quantifiable and convenient for demonstrating “evidence,” they often fail to capture deeper learning, conceptual understanding, critical thinking, or the development of a genuine love for learning. An instructional method might be “effective” in boosting test scores in the short term, but if it simultaneously diminishes student curiosity, engagement, and long-term retention, is it truly effective in the broader sense of education? Following Kohn’s line of inquiry, we must critically examine the definition of “effective” that underpins any claim of “evidence-based” practice and ensure it aligns with a comprehensive and meaningful vision of educational success.

3. For Whom is it Effective? Context and Individual Differences

Even when robust studies demonstrate the positive impact of a particular instructional approach, Alfie Kohn rightly cautions against overgeneralization. Research findings, even from well-designed studies, typically show probabilities of success for specific interventions under particular conditions, not guarantees of universal effectiveness. Claims of “evidence-based” practice often fail to adequately acknowledge the crucial qualifiers inherent in research findings, such as the specific population studied, the context of implementation, and the nuances of the intervention itself.

As literacy expert Richard Allington reminds us, and Kohn emphasizes, “Effective teaching is not just about using whatever science says ‘usually’ works best. It is all about finding out what works best for the individual child and the group of children in front of you.” This individualized approach, increasingly recognized in fields like medicine, stands in stark contrast to the monolithic application often advocated under the banner of “evidence-based” education, particularly in areas like reading instruction, as Thomas Newkirk points out. Science, in its true form, acknowledges complexity and variation. Therefore, a responsible application of research in education, aligned with Kohn’s perspective, demands a move away from one-size-fits-all mandates and towards a more nuanced, context-aware, and student-centered approach that considers individual needs and learning styles.

4. At What Cost? Considering Unintended Consequences

Alfie Kohn raises a critical point often overlooked in the enthusiasm for “evidence-based” instruction: the potential costs and unintended consequences. Focusing solely on measurable outcomes and narrowly defined “evidence” can lead to the adoption of instructional methods that, while seemingly effective in achieving specific targets, may have detrimental side effects on student well-being, motivation, and the overall quality of the learning experience.

As Kohn elaborates, prioritizing easily measured behaviors and outcomes can inadvertently promote teaching methods that alienate students and stifle their intrinsic interest in learning. This can result in schooling becoming not only less enjoyable but also ultimately less effective in fostering a genuine love of learning and deep understanding. Yong Zhao’s concept of “side effects in education,” highlighted by Kohn, underscores the importance of considering the broader impact of any instructional practice. Even if a method demonstrably improves test scores, we must critically evaluate its potential negative consequences on student engagement, creativity, critical thinking, and overall well-being, ensuring that the pursuit of “evidence-based” practices does not come at the expense of a holistic and humanistic education, a sentiment strongly echoed in Alfie Kohn’s broader philosophy.

5. Is it Truly Evidence-Based or Just a Slogan? Examining the Rhetoric

Perhaps the most unsettling question Alfie Kohn poses is whether the term “evidence-based” is always used to genuinely reflect a commitment to research or if it sometimes functions merely as a rhetorical device, a persuasive slogan rather than a meaningful descriptor. Just as “all-natural” on a food label can be more about marketing than substance, “evidence-based” in education can, at times, serve to shut down debate and legitimize particular ideologies rather than invite critical inquiry.

Kohn observes that the label “evidence-based” is disproportionately used to defend traditionalist practices like direct instruction and behaviorist approaches, often with a fervor that suggests ideological conviction rather than objective evaluation of evidence. He points to the historical example of the “No Child Left Behind” Act, where the invocation of “science” was used to justify high-stakes testing despite a lack of evidence supporting its benefits. Similarly, the current push for systematic phonics as the “science of reading” and explicit academic instruction in preschools, as Kohn illustrates with further examples and references, often relies more on rhetorical assertion than on a balanced and critical interpretation of the available research. Therefore, a crucial aspect of engaging with claims of “evidence-based” practice, in line with Kohn’s skepticism, is to critically examine the underlying motivations and potential ideological agendas driving the rhetoric, ensuring that we are evaluating genuine evidence rather than being swayed by persuasive but ultimately unsubstantiated claims.

Conclusion: Navigating the Complexities of “Evidence-Based” Instruction with Alfie Kohn’s Wisdom

Alfie Kohn’s insightful critique of “evidence-based” instruction is not a rejection of research or data in education. Instead, it is a powerful call for a more nuanced, critical, and responsible engagement with the concept. It urges us to move beyond the simplistic and often misleading rhetoric surrounding “evidence-based” practices and to ask the crucial questions that ensure we are truly serving the best interests of students and fostering meaningful learning.

By adopting Kohn’s five key questions – What kind of evidence? Evidence of what? Evidence for whom? Evidence at what cost? And is it truly evidence-based? – we can navigate the complexities of educational decision-making with greater discernment. This critical lens allows us to appreciate the value of research while remaining vigilant against its misuse, ensuring that “evidence” serves as a genuine guide to improving education rather than a rhetorical tool to justify narrow or ideologically driven agendas. Ultimately, embracing Alfie Kohn’s perspective on “evidence-based” instruction empowers us to create richer, more effective, and more humanistic learning environments that prioritize the holistic development and well-being of every student.

References:

1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. How People Learn II: Learners, Contexts, and Cultures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2018.
2. Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger. Situated Learning. Cambridge University Press, 1991.
3. Parsons, Seth A. and Joy Dangora Erickson. “Where Is Motivation in the Science of Reading?” Phi Delta Kappan, February 2024, pp. 32-36.
4. Allington, Richard L. “Ideology Is Still Trumping Evidence.” Phi Delta Kappan, February 2005, p. 462.
5. Newkirk, Thomas. The Broken Logic of “Sold a Story” (Literacy Research Commons, 2024), p. 9.
6. Biesta, Gert. “Why ‘What Works’ Won’t Work: Evidence-Based Practice and the Democratic Deficit in Educational Research.” Educational Theory 57 (2007), pp. 6-12.
7. Zhao, Yong. What Works May Hurt: Side Effects in Education. Teachers College Press, 2018.
8. Zhao, Yong. “Side Effects in Education.” Journal of Educational Change.
9. Davis, Andrew. “Evidence-Based Approaches to Education.” Management in Education 32 (2018): 135-38.
10. Kohn, Alfie. “Cognitive Load Theory: An Unpersuasive Attempt to Justify Direct Instruction.” Alfie Kohn website, 2024.
11. Sandbank, Micheal et al. “Project AIM: Autism Intervention Meta-Analysis for Studies of Young Children.” Psychological Bulletin 146 (2020): 1-29.
12. Kohn, Alfie. “Autism and Behaviorism.” Alfie Kohn website.
13. TRICARE-Autism-Report.
14. Study of Positive Behaviour Support on autistic children. BMC Psychiatry.
15. Kohn, Alfie. Punished by Rewards. Houghton Mifflin, 1993/2018.
16. U.S. Department of Education. Strategic Plan – 2002-2007, March 2002.
17. Meier, Deborah et al. Many Children Left Behind. Beacon Press, 2004.
18. Bracey, Gerald W. “The Condition of Public Education.” Phi Delta Kappan, October 2006, pp. 151-53.
19. Jacob, Bill. “Implementing Standards: The California Mathematics Textbook Debacle.” Phi Delta Kappan, November 2001, pp. 265, 266.
20. Tierney, Robert J. and P David Pearson. Fact-Checking the Science of Reading (Literacy Research Commons, 2024).
21. Reinking, David et al. “Legislating Phonics: Settled Science or Political Polemics?.” Teachers College Record 125 (2023): 104-31.
22. Johnston, Peter and Donna Scanlon. “An Examination of Dyslexia Research and Instruction with Policy Implications.” Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice 70 (2021): 107-28.
23. Bowers, Jeffrey S. “Reconsidering the Evidence That Systematic Phonics Is More Effective Than Alternative Methods of Reading Instruction.” Educational Psychology Review 32 (2020): 681-705.
24. Wyse, Dominic and Alice Bradbury. “Reading Wars or Reading Reconciliation?.” Review of Education 10 (2022): e3314.
25. Compton-Lilly, Catherine et al. “Stories Grounded in Decades of Research: What We Truly Know About the Teaching of Reading.” The Reading Teacher 77 (2023): 392-400.
26. Aukerman, Maren. “Is Reporting Biased?.” Literacy Research Association Blog, 2022.
27. Aukerman, Maren. “Does the Media Draw on High-Quality Reading Research?.” Literacy Research Association Blog, 2022.
28. Aukerman, Maren. “How Do Current Reporting Patterns Cause Damage?.” Literacy Research Association Blog, 2022.
29. Gray, Peter. “Beware of ‘Evidence-Based’ Preschool Curricula.” Psychology Today, December 9, 2021.
30. Kohn, Alfie. “Early Childhood Education.” Alfie Kohn website.
31. Kohn, Alfie. The Schools Our Children Deserve. Houghton Mifflin, 1999.