Training teachers with 'pop Science': are humans as simplistic as Science suggests?

I have written before about the pedagogy attached to training sessions for teachers (see link here). My thoughts have been brought back to this topic after a recent training session in attachment theory. In particular, the use of popular science when training teachers.

Since I started teaching I have been involved in numerous training programmes, which upon reflection, has incorporated scientific findings about the brain to training sessions. The most recurring example is the synaptic connections within the brain which strengthen knowledge through practice. Similarly, I have become familiar with the amygdala, which according to session facilitators is actively involved with the flight, fight or freeze reactions that humans find themselves within when their “chimp” is out.

Sociology of scientific knowledge has been concerned with researching the effect of scientific knowledge upon social life and this is an example of this. During these training sessions I have often been skeptic of the use of scientific understanding of these social characteristics, which has led me to reflect, why? I think it may be due to my social science training. During A-level Sociology, I learned about the sociology of science and read works by Kuhn, Popper and Potter. Is it really true that social conduct is all down to functions within the brain? Perhaps my skepticism is a weakness and my lack of scientific knowledge is causing me to be ignorant but from my point of view this type of “popular science” is too simplistic and reduces humans to cause and effect models. 

Teachers teaching teachers, is there pedagogy for that?

So far in my teaching career, I have attended two training sessions both with the aims of aiding the teacher with knowledge of how to teach pupils with English as an Additional Language (EAL). After attending one of these sessions at a Computing at School conference today, I began reflecting on the actual pedagogy behind teaching teachers about these matters. Both sessions began with the session leader conducting the training in another language: in one the session leader began talking to us in Spanish (although I can speak Spanish), and the other gave us an activity written entirely in Polish. I thought that this was a very useful method to get teachers to reflect upon their lessons and the language that we take for granted. Putting ourselves in the pupils shoes is often difficult when we already know the knowledge we are trying to convey, but if we do not know a language it is easier to empathise with EAL learners. This is often one thing that I am guilty of forgetting, I will ensure that when planning lessons for EAL pupils I think about it from a non-English speaking point of view and invoke the use of sound and pictures to convey the meaning.

However, this got me thinking about the overall teaching of teachers. Who trains these teachers to teach teachers? Is there a pedagogy that trainers must understand to teach pedagogy to teachers? It would be very interesting to research into this and find results, watch this space.