Human Cultural Evolution Theory (HCET) has developed during the past 50 years. By explaining how people form and manage groups (Boyer, 2020), HCET provides a biological, evolutionary basis for the conservative and adaptive patterns of political and sociological understandings relating to the field of education.

This paper will introduce HCET, then address the following research questions (RQ).

RQ1. How does HCET inform the work of Anyon, Beck and Durkheim?

RQ2. What are the implications of HCET for curriculum innovation, inquiry and transmissive pedagogies?

RQ3. What are the consequences for failing to consider human attributes based on cultural evolution in education governance structures?

In complex social species, such as primates, cetaceans and several families of birds, innovations by individuals are occasionally transferred to others, a phenomenon that requires a capacity for observational learning. However, adding  a variation to a learnt behaviour pattern is much less common than its maintenance, explaining why cumulative cultural evolution is a rare phenomenon (Boyd & Richerson, 1996). Among living complex, social species, humans are extreme outliers in their capacity for cooperation and communication (Tomasello, 2014). These attributes have resulted in the complete dependence of every human society on its culture (Henrich, 2017, p. 318).

Natural selection operates on ideas (memes) as much as on genes (Richerson & Boyd, 2008). In humans, cultural factors are hypothesised to have acted as important synergistic drivers for a range of physical traits, particularly those associated with communication. An important example are eyes with visible whites (sclera), a feature that enables gaze to be tracked and the mental states of others to be deduced (Boyer, 2020, p. 22; Rozov, 2025; Skoyles, 2023); a skill that is evident from infancy (Butterworth, 2004; Messer, 2004; Woodward, 2003).  

The speed of cultural accumulation in humans, particularly during the past 150 years, has provoked attention to the role of culturally inherited cognitive mechanisms in social learning. A suggested progression, acting over millions of years, is imitation, language, mindreading (or theory-of-mind) for teaching, metacognition and normative cognition (Birch & Heyes, 2021, p. 1). These mechanisms are cultural because they recruit learners and therefore bypass genetic selection. They are all processes that are familiar to educational and psychological contexts.

Cultures are maintained by ‘in-group’ biases towards shared perspectives (e.g., moral, economic, political) signalled to others (e.g., by dress, accent or gesture) and reenforced by ‘coalitional recruitment’, which can be as subtle as a look (gaze) (Boyer, 2020, p. 54). These group traits, like the phenotype of an individual, also confer evolutionary ‘fitness’. In HCET, the social dynamics of human societies (Turchin, 2016) is explained by ‘multi-level selection’ (Kendal et al., 2009; Turchin, 2016; Walker et al., 2021), which involve separate (often conflicting) advantages of complying with ‘group norms’ or acting individually.

Social learning, evident in transmissive pedagogies, conserves the status quo of group norms, but does not contribute to cumulative cultural knowledge. Like the genetically analogous concept of asexual reproduction, which does not contribute to variation, but is a ‘low cost’, efficient means of reproduction in stable environments. Asocial learning (i.e., individual learning), generally promoted in education by using inquiry pedagogies,  risks being irrelevant, so is generally ‘high cost’, although asocial learners may experience an ‘exclusive pay-off’ in a changed environment (Kendal et al., 2009, p. 210).

Multi-level selection explains the challenges of introducing innovation to schooling, from radical curriculums (Lingard & McGregor, 2014), subject integration (Termaat, 2023; Venville et al., 2008; Wallace et al., 2007), or  frameworks that foster thinking, (Dickson et al., 2020a, 2020b; Johnson & Boon, 2023; Leat, 1999; Millar, 2022). Each example is likely to oppose the cultural ‘norm’ of +past practice.

This is an interpretive discussion that draws on two sets research data encompassing a mixture of methods. 1) A limited case study of classroom practice in a school implementing a pedagogy that aligns with Australia’s current policy climate, High Impact Teaching Practice (HITP) (Termaat, 2025). Transcripts of audio recordings in four subjects, English, humanities, mathematics and science, were semantically coded to 18 known strategies for fostering metacognition, organised into codes and code children on NVivo 2.0. Because metacognition is a ‘fuzzy’ concept (Mahdavi, 2014), and semantic coding needs explicit themes, this strategy ensured evidence was matched to peer reviewed research (Proudfoot, 2023). Speculation and inquiry were entirely absent from the practice in the case study. 2) Anonymous, voluntary survey data from teachers in six independent international schools and two Catholic systemic schools. (Data collection ongoing). The survey instrument referenced published examples of questionnaires about strategies known to be associated with students’ metacognitive development (Adey, 1999; Department of Education and Training State of Victoria, 2004; OECD, 2019; Zohar, 2006; Zohar & Schwartzer, 2005) In contrast to the classroom practice data of the case study (which, from the perspective of HCET, may have been an example of an ‘overt demonstration of compliance’ to an imposed norm), every participant reported a broad range of teaching strategies. Most respondents were veteran teachers with at least 20 years’ experience. The independent international schools typically served 200 junior secondary students, but the systemic schools taught at least 400 junior secondary students and were also integrated in larger systems. Teachers working in the smaller schools were consistently resource related concerns, for example, ‘limited physical space for displays (English) or performances (Drama). Teachers in the larger schools typically referenced cultural norms, for example, curriculum pressure, expectations related to assessment schedules, lack of opportunities for differentiation, or for providing students with ‘meaningful learning opportunities. The pattern of each group’s qualitative elaborations exactly predictions based on HCET (Zefferman & Mathew, 2015). Iin small groups of humans, individuals are likely to be valued for their diversity (i.e., high in-group variability), but in large groups of humans, individuals are likely to be valued for their conformity (i.e., low in-group variability). Students in the smaller schools may have less access to physical resources, but these institutions are also likely to demonstrate greater tolerance towards in-group variability, because pressure to comply with the cultural norms of small groups is less intense.

The case study found the transmissive pedagogies of HITP embedded foundational declarative knowledge, but opportunities for students to practice high order and complexity thinking, requisite skills for navigating a ‘risk society’ (Beck, 2009), were limited. HITP’s avoidance of speculation and inquiry aligns with parameters Anyon (1981) established in middle-class schools, not the affluent-professional community suggested by the school’s publicly available Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage (ACARA, 2023). HITP’s transmissive rituals of chorusing, Initiate-Response-Feedback routines, and teacher-echo reinforce Durkheimian moral concerns about community, authority, and sacredness, or, in HCET’s revisionary interpretation, represent instances of in-group signalling and coalitional recruitment, ‘low cost’ cultural transmission strategies for stable social contexts. HITP fosters in-group cohesion, which confers important evolutionary advantages during competition between groups. HCET explains the challenge of including inquiry and innovation to educational contexts lies in their attention to individuals or small groups. From the long view of evolution, these cognitive pursuits are ‘high cost’ because they are likely to fail. But practising inquiry strategies encultures students into dispositions that support democracy. In addition, investing in opportunities for students to develop initiative and agency, for example, by introducing (meaningful) authentic contexts for problem solving (individually and in groups) are examples of ‘cultural work-arounds’ based on HCET that embrace students’ individuality. From the perspective of multi-level-section, individuals and groups need both types of functional strategies, enabling them to benefit from cultural knowledge (e.g., involving transmissive pedagogies) and enhancing individual responsibility and agency, (e.g., involving inquiry), which rely on metacognition, and develops adaptability.

Birch, J., & Heyes, C. (2021). The cultural evolution of cultural evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 376(1828), 20200051. Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1996). Why culture is common, but cultural evolution is rare. Proceedings-British academy, Boyer, P. (2020). Minds make societies: How cognition explains the world humans create. Yale University Press. Dickson, A., Perry, L. B., & Ledger, S. (2020b). Letting go of the Middle Years Programme: three schools' rationales for discontinuing an International Baccalaureate Program. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(1), 35. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1177/1932202X19869006 Henrich, J. (2017). The secret of our success: how culture is driving human evolution, domesticating our species, and making us smarter. Princeton University Press. Lingard, R., & McGregor, G. (2014). Two contrasting Australian Curriculum responses to globalization: what students should learn or become. The Curriculum Journal 25(Creating Curricula: Aims, Knowledge, and Control). Mahdavi, M. (2014). An Overview: Metacognition in Education. International Journal of Multidisciplinary and Current Research, 2, 529–535. Millar, S. (2022). An exploration of the introduction of Thinking Science professional development into five schools and how this affected teachers' pedagogy Proudfoot, K. (2023). Inductive/deductive hybrid thematic analysis in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 17(3), 308–326. Termaat, A. (2023). Nurturing interdisciplinary practice in small secondary schools. Cogent Education, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2225003 Termaat, A. (2025). The appeal of control and its rituals: vignettes of Rosenshine's Principals of Instruction In P. J. White, R. Tytler, J. P. Fergusen, J. Cripps Clark, & J. P. Brown (Eds.), Methodological Approaches to STEM Education Research - Volume 6 (pp. 287–315). Tomasello, M. (2014). The ultra‐social animal. European journal of social psychology, 44(3), 187–194. Turchin, P. (2016). Ultrasociety: how 10.000 years of war made humans the greatest cooperators on Earth. Beresta Books Venville, G. J., Wallace, J., Rennie, L. J., & Malone, J. A. (2008). Curriculum integration: eroding the high ground of science as a school subject? Studies in Science Education, 37(1), 43–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560177 Zefferman, M. R., & Mathew, S. (2015). An evolutionary theory of large‐scale human warfare: Group‐structured cultural selection. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 24(2), 50–61. Zohar, A. (2006). The nature and development of teachers' metastrategic knowledge in the context of teaching higher order thinking. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 331–377. Zohar, A., & Schwartzer, N. (2005). Assessing teachers’ pedagogical knowledge in the context of teaching higher‐order thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 27(13), 1595–1620.