By Madison Narain
“The aim of education is the knowledge, not of facts, but of values,” a quote attributed to William S. Burroughs suggests that education should do more than just teach facts; it should simultaneously cultivate an environment that centers the values that guide one’s decisions, actions, and dialogue. What one values determines what is prioritized when engaged in the learning process. Oftentimes, material is simplified within classrooms to make it more accessible. But, one must ask: When this happens, are ideas being clarified, or is the depth that makes them valuable being removed?
Some argue that simplification in education is crucial because it improves understanding, promotes long-term retention, and creates clearer learning targets. According to “The Value of Simplicity in the Classroom,” an article published by The Effortful Educator, “by presenting our novice learners material in an easily digestible/simple manner, we are making them much more knowledgeable. They can then incorporate that material with their prior knowledge and be on their way to becoming more creative and analytical expert learners.” Moreover, simplifying concepts allows students to individually make the necessary connections between what they are learning and their existing knowledge and lets them grow as individual thinkers. The Cognitive Load Theory, developed by John Sweller, demonstrates how learning is most effective when the information presented does not overwhelm the brain's working memory. Based on this, reducing material is necessary to optimize long-term memory retention. In addition, Bob Sonju and students maintain in “Why It's Okay to Teach Wrong Ideas in Physics” that “instead of feeling the pressure to get all the curriculum delivered, teacher-teams had permission to prioritize the focus for their instruction by collectively identifying, clarifying, and ensuring the essentials all students must learn in each course and grade level.” The authors argue that simplifying material creates more specific proficiency targets, which fosters the opportunity for greater scaffolding and, therefore, greater student comprehension.
A common example of simplifications necessity is the Bohr model of the atom, which is taught in middle school. According to Sam Anderson, in his article “Why It's Okay to Teach Wrong Ideas in Physics” where he weighs both the benefits and restrictions of this representation, he states “This is tricky material, and Bohr’s picture of the atom is simple and works well enough, so it’s a good introduction.” While scientifically incomplete, it helps build understanding before more advanced quantum concepts are introduced. This model supports early learning without overwhelming students.
On the other hand, simplification of materials can have negative effects such as oversimplification. This leads to loss of the engagement and critical thinking required for retention to occur and the distortion of complex topics. Alex Quigley argues in “The Oversimplification Trap” that discovery and analysis improves memory by transforming passive information into active, structured knowledge, making it more durable and retrievable. Tesler’s law, also known as the Law of Conservation of Complexity, states that every application has an inherent amount of complexity that cannot be removed, only moved. In this context, this means that either the student handles the complexity during the learning or during application. Moreover, Quigley emphasizes the importance of teachers’ complete comprehension of topics. He highlights how educators are faced with complexity and diversity in a classroom environment. Realistically speaking, to be successful, educators must have a large variety of possible solutions. This makes their understanding a crucial aspect of a strong academic environment. Finally, Ivy Reed argues in “Flawed Historical Narratives in the Classroom” the importance of details in subjects that are too complex to be simplified without stripping away what makes the material accurate, as otherwise, we risk the spread of misinformation as students make their own conclusions to fill in the gaps.
One of many examples where oversimplification is present can be found in the term feudalism, a word commonly taught in history classes. Students are taught that feudalism is a term that accurately represents the social structure throughout all of Medieval Europe. However, this term fails to identify the various unique social structures that formed throughout different times and different places across the Middle Ages. As Melissa Snell maintains in “The Problem With Feudalism,” the term "feudalism" oversimplifies the social structures of Medieval Europe and can create misunderstandings. Irrespective of its clear inaccuracy, the word continues to strongly influence the world's understanding of the Medieval Era.
Education does not exist in isolation, it paves the remainder of a student's life as it teaches them more than just factual information. Simplification is needed to improve understanding, potentially promote long-term retention, and further target learning but excessive simplification can lead to misinformation, a loss of the engagement and critical thinking required for retention to occur, and the distortion of complex topics. As education evolves, finding a proper balance continues to be the responsibility of both educators and students: educators in the way they present material, and students in how deeply they choose to engage with it. In the end, education may depend not on how much is simplified, but how carefully we decide what must remain.