In questi giorni ho letto “When can you trust experts?” di Daniel Willingham e l’ho trovato molto utile e stimolante (diciamo che me lo aspettavo). In particolare c’è un paio di paragrafi che voglio riportare qui perché inquadrano nella maniera giusta il problema tra la ricerca didattico-pedagogica e gli insegnanti, e sono contento che a parlarne sia uno psicologo cognitivo serio.
E’ un atteggiamento di apertura e comprensione che va al di là della malcelata diffidenza nei confronti degli insegnanti e della loro supposta renitenza all’innovazione. Non che questa non esista, anzi, e certamente gli insegnanti italiani non brillano certo per auto-formazione (in media), e ovviamente Willingham parla in primo luogo dell’America…ma credo che il discorso sia ampiamente “riconoscibile”, soprattutto tenendo bene a mente che la ricerca pedagogico-didattica di stampo accademico rimane fondamentale, pure con tutti i difetti che Willingham, da insider illustre, esemplifica.
I brani vengono dal capitolo 6 e 7 (non so citare le pagine perché leggo da e-book) e credo di citarli in una misura sufficientemente ridotta da non infrangere alcun copyright. Ovviamente sono estratti, quindi per inquadrare il problema in ogni sfumatura è il caso che vi leggiate il libro. Nondimeno credo che anche degli escerti possano essere utili a farsi un’idea.
Il primo: “Small wonder that many teachers are suspicious of education research, and that it seldom influences their teaching. Part of this suspicion comes from a sense that researchers reduce everything to things that are easy to measure and, in so doing, miss most of the rich texture of the classroom. My own experience in talking to teachers indicates that there is another factor: a sense that different people make different claims about what “the research shows”. Just as statistical legerdemain can make data appear to support any conclusion, so too can “the research” be shape-shifted as one sees fit. One can hardly blame teachers, who are in the classroom every day, observing firsthand what works and what doesn’t, for not changing their practice on the basis of what looks like foolery.
Il secondo: “Each of us trusts authorities all the time. On what basis do I evaluate the advice dispensed by my doctor? Or my electrician, or my accountant? I trust them exactly because they have relevant training; they are credentialed. Believing them because they are authorities is not just a matter of convenience for me. I can’t do otherwise but trust them. Naturally, this trust doesn’t always benefit us. We’ve all had that uneasy feeling of wondering whether our doctor really knows what he’s doing. But for the most part, the trust seems to work out. […]
There seems to be three crucial differences between my doctor and an education researcher. First, when it comes to doctors, plumbers and the other professionals whom I trust, I don’t have to do the vetting. I believe, with some justification, that a license to practice the profession is meaningful. […]
Further, the professionals in thes fields decide whether a particular subfield requires further training or a separate license. Auto mechanics may become certified to work on particular makes of cars. Any physician is somewhat knowledgeable about heart problems, but if there is a serious issue, the patient is sent to a cardiac specialist: […]experts are reluctant to take positions beyond their expertise because there are acknowledged specialists.
Another important difference between education research and fields with trustworthy experts is that we believe there is a settled truth in these other fields. For example, last week I called an electrician to diagnose and repair a problem: the lights in my living room kept flickering. It didn’t even occur to me there might be two or three opposing schools of thought on how to solve this problem. As I consider it now, I recognize that there might be more than one way to fix it, but I expect that different electricians would acknowledge that even though they have their own favorite method, the other methods are at least okay. […]
In education experts think that other experts’ methods are terrible, are likely to damage children, and so on.
The third difference between education researchers and doctors or accountants concerns the role of the consumer in fixing the problem. In fields with acknowledged experts, practitioners try mightily to minimize our contribution to solving the problem. My auto mechanic doesn’t invite me to turn a few screws as he’s fixing my car, or to chip in my opinions in what to do next. He (accurately) figures I’ll be more of a nuisance than anything else. […]
This arrangement does not hold in education. Teachers and parents are not willing simply to do what education researchers tell them. Researchers don’t have that kind of credibility, and they don’t deserve it. In consequence, parents and teacher interpret what education researchers suggest, and sometimes their interpretation is not in keeping with what the researcher believes the science supports, as we described in the case of Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences. […]
In sum, we trust authorities when (1) a reliable licensing body certifies their expertise; (2) there is a settled truth in the field on which experts agree; (3) the settled truth allows experts to diagnose problems accurately and to prescribe remedies that work in most situations and that do not require creativity or skill from the nonexpert. So where do we stand in education? None of the three conditions have been met.
Immagine: Colin
