Daniel Willingham--Science & Education
Hypothesis non fingo
  • Home
  • About
  • Books
  • Articles
  • Op-eds
  • Videos
  • Learning Styles FAQ
  • Daniel Willingham: Science and Education Blog

Learning styles, science, practice, and Disneyland

5/28/2013

 
A teacher from the UK has just written to me asking for a bit of clarification (EDIT: the email came from Sue Cowley, who is actually a teacher trainer.)

She says that some people are taking my writing on the experiments that have tested predictions of learning styles theories (see here) as implying that teachers ought not to use these theories to inform their practice.
PictureMy own learning style is Gangnam
Her reading of what I've written on the subject differs: she thinks I'm suggesting that although the scientific backing for learning styles is absent, teachers may still find the idea useful in the classroom.

The larger issue--the relationship of basic science to practice--is complex enough that I thought it was worth writing a book about it. But I'll describe one important aspect of the problem here.

There are two methods by which one might use learning styles theories to inspire ones practice. The way that scientific evidence bears on these two methods is radically different.

Method 1: Scientific evidence on children's learning is consistent with how I teach.

Teachers inevitably have a theory--implicit or explicit--of how children learn. This theory influences choices teachers make in their practice. If you believe that science provides a good way to develop and update your theory of how children learn, then the harmony between this theory and your practice is one way that you build your own confidence that you're teaching effectively. (It is not, of course, the only source of evidence teachers would consider.)

It would seem, then, that because learning styles theories have no scientific support, we would conclude that practice meant to be consistent with learning styles theories will inevitably be bad practice.

It's not that simple, however. "Inevitably" is too strong. Scientific theory and practice are just not that tightly linked.

It's possible to have effective practices motivated by a theory that lacks scientific support. For example, certain acupuncture treatments were initially motivated by theories entailing chakras--energy fields for which scientific evidence is lacking. Still, some treatments motivated by the theory are known to be effective in pain management.

But happy accidents like acupuncture are going to be much rarer than cases in which the wrong theory leads to practices that are either a waste of time or are actively bad. As long as we're using time-worn medical examples, let's not forget the theory of four humors.

Bottom line for Method 1: learning styles theories are not accurate representations of how children learn. Although they are certainly not guaranteed to lead to bad practice, using them as a guide is more likely to degrade practice than improve it.

Method 2: Learning styles as inspiration for practice, not evidence to justify practice.

In talking with teachers, I think this second method is probably more common. Teachers treat learning styles theories not as sacred truth about how children learn, but as a way to prime the creativity pump, to think about new angles on lesson plans.

Scientific theory is not the only source of inspiration for classroom practice. Any theory (or more generally, anything) can be a source of inspiration.

What's crucial is that the inspirational source bears no evidential status for the practice.

In the case of learning styles a teacher using this method does not say to himself "And I'll do this because then I'm appealing to the learning styles of all my students," even if the this was an idea generated by learning styles. The evidence that this is a good idea comes from professional judgment, or because a respected colleague reported that she found it effective, or whatever.

Picture
Analogously, I may frequently think about Disneyland when planning lessons simply because I think Disneyland is cool and I believe I often get engaging, useful ideas of classroom activities when I think about Disneyland. Disneyland is useful to me, but it doesn't represent how kids learn.

Bottom line for Method 2: Learning styles theories might serve as an inspiration for practice, but it holds no special status as such; anything can inspire practice.

The danger, of course, lies in confusing these two methods. It would never occur to me that a Disneyland-inspired lesson is a good idea because Disneyland represents how kids think. But that slip-of-the-mind might happen with learning styles theories and indeed, it seems to with some regularity.

Sue Cowley link
5/28/2013 04:13:45 am

Thank you so much for taking the time to clarify. It's much appreciated. Kind regards, Sue.

David Wees link
5/28/2013 04:27:21 am

How important is presenting a concept in multiple representations for everyone? Is it useful to present the same idea, for example, in text, audio-visual, and experiential (hands-on) formats?

I have always thought of multiple-learning styles as being a bit bogus, but I also try and present ideas in a variety of mediums for all students, under the thought that this may help students develop the ability to transfer the idea through different contexts.

Dan Willingham
5/28/2013 04:48:12 am

David I don't know of any evidence that presenting an idea in multiple representations (text, a.v., hands-on) would lead to better transfer. LOTS of work on the idea that presenting the same *underlying* concept with different *surface* structures to the problem would lead to better transfer, esp. if students are asked to compare the problems.

David Wees link
5/28/2013 04:51:04 am

Can you give me an example of "presenting the same *underlying* concept with different *surface* structures"?

I think I get what you mean, but I want to see if my idea matches any example you are able to give.

Dan Willingham
5/28/2013 05:59:24 am

Sure, something like the contingent contract principle of negotiation see this http://csjarchive.cogsci.rpi.edu/proceedings/2008/pdfs/p1659.pdf

ChemistryPoet
5/28/2013 09:58:38 am

The problem with 'learning styles' and other new ideas isn't so much the lack of evidence to endorse them (which is a problem), but how quickly they become orthodoxy and are enforced as 'required' approaches. Poor judgement from SLT?q

Lillian
5/28/2013 09:51:21 pm

I am a teacher of languages, and I have sometimes heard students saying things such as "I am a visual learner", etc. Apparently, they have taken a test at one point that shows this. If you look at stages of learning you normally go from the concrete to the abstract. If a student claims to be a kinesthetic learner, I take that as an indication that the student has not reached the abstract level. In lanugages you need to practise "the verbal style". If a student claims to be a "visual learner", it means that he or she most probably does not have an adequate level of language skill. People who have good language skills often do well in most subjects. Obviously, people express themselves through other means than language, but rather than saying that someone is a kinesthetic or visual learner one could simply say that humans find pleasure in expressing themselves through many different means, and that all skills need to be practised. I doubt Leonardo da Vinci would have succeeded in so many fields if he had been told that he was a "visual learner". Labeling a person as having one or the other learning style may soon become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Erica Kleinknecht link
5/29/2013 02:47:48 pm

Whenever I have the opportunity, I voice the same kinds of concerns about following "learning styles" perspectives, and in fact, I often refer readers to your 2009 book "Why don't students like school" because I love your chapter on learning styles and multiple intelligences. In fact I wrote a blog about this too, about a year ago: http://cognitioneducation.me/2012/03/14/labeling-in-the-name-of-progress/. In the post I discuss a situation that arose when I used your book in an MAT class I was teaching. In short, the students really resonated with your work, that is, up through chapter 6. They couldn't take chapter 7. They vehemently argued with me over the possibility that learning styles are bogus. I managed to reach most of the students in the class, but one or two refused to change their beliefs. Surely you have run into similar situations (hence the impetus for this blog, right?). Do you find that on balance, your writings (blogs, books) are positively received though, or do you find quite a lot of resistance still, to empirically based perspectives?

Dan Willingham
5/29/2013 11:23:21 pm

Mostly very positive. In fact I would say negative reaction is really, really rare. By this I don't mean that teachers and admin (my main audience) are almost always persuaded, but they take what I say seriously, and have an open mind.

ChrisMWParsons
5/29/2013 11:03:58 pm

Forgetting for a moment the point that 'Learning Styles' theory is misleading and effectively bogus... (which I entirely agree with)

A thing which has annoyed me about this ideology is the assumption that you should tailor content to the style which children supposedly are strongest in, effectively narrowing them down further to relying on content being presented this way. Surely a responsible teacher would be pushing them to tune-up the modalities which they aren't strong in? It seems like a sub-set of the whole push to make learning as easy as possible, via bottom-rung engagement techniques... thereby equipping children to struggle immensely with the real world.

Dan Willingham
5/29/2013 11:25:42 pm

Chris, this is a great example of another aspect of the relationship between basic science and it's application. Applications entail goals, and you can set any goal you like. So if your goal is that children learn a broad set of skills and learn to bolster their weaknesses, you will apply learning styles theory very differently than if you set a goal that children should maximially develop their strengths, even if that means that they are rather narrow.

ChrisMWParsons
5/30/2013 02:31:34 am

Thanks for the acknowledgement Dan. I guess in that sense, my goal is as value laden and un-scientific as theirs, although I suspect I could rail at the apparent assumption that we should actually pander to someone's learning style.

In a broader goals/values sense though, I like to put it to people that educators have a dual duty to prepare children both for the "world of OPPORTUNITY" and the "world of NECESSITY". A huge amount of the '21st Century Skills' hype is geared towards the former, whilst implying that the latter has vanished.

I know that your point was a more general philosophy of science one, but I couldn't help slip that in!


Comments are closed.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    RSS Feed


    Purpose

    The goal of this blog is to provide pointers to scientific findings that are applicable to education that I think ought to receive more attention.

    Archives

    July 2020
    May 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    October 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    June 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    November 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    December 2015
    July 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    January 2015
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012

    Categories

    All
    21st Century Skills
    Academic Achievement
    Academic Achievement
    Achievement Gap
    Adhd
    Aera
    Animal Subjects
    Attention
    Book Review
    Charter Schools
    Child Development
    Classroom Time
    College
    Consciousness
    Curriculum
    Data Trustworthiness
    Education Schools
    Emotion
    Equality
    Exercise
    Expertise
    Forfun
    Gaming
    Gender
    Grades
    Higher Ed
    Homework
    Instructional Materials
    Intelligence
    International Comparisons
    Interventions
    Low Achievement
    Math
    Memory
    Meta Analysis
    Meta-analysis
    Metacognition
    Morality
    Motor Skill
    Multitasking
    Music
    Neuroscience
    Obituaries
    Parents
    Perception
    Phonological Awareness
    Plagiarism
    Politics
    Poverty
    Preschool
    Principals
    Prior Knowledge
    Problem-solving
    Reading
    Research
    Science
    Self-concept
    Self Control
    Self-control
    Sleep
    Socioeconomic Status
    Spatial Skills
    Standardized Tests
    Stereotypes
    Stress
    Teacher Evaluation
    Teaching
    Technology
    Value-added
    Vocabulary
    Working Memory