Thoughts about learning styles

Posted on by

This week’s topic is focused on theories of learning styles, multiple intelligence, and why these myths continue to perpetuate and impact our teaching. My various responses are collected here:

First Response

To begin, I’ll state that I’ve been there, and done that. I have come to see the falsehood of learning styles. I’ve taught with learning styles and Gardner’s intelligences in mind. I’ve structure units of study around those multiple intelligences and done the surveys to see what learning styles students prefer. I see the argument Willingham (2009) and Marshik (2015) are making and understand that evidence “from the last 10 years confirms that matching instruction to learning style brings no benefit” (Willingham, 2018, p. 30). What I find fascinating, is that this theory lives on. Willingham (2018) states that individuals “believe they have learning styles, and they try to think in their preferred style, but doing so doesn’t help them think (p. 29). So why does this common belief perpetuate?

Willingham (2009) gives three reasons for the continuity of the myth of learning styles. These include the wisdom of the crowd, an adjacent theory with merit, and confirmation bias. Beliefs based on the wisdom of the crowd include the earth as the center of the universe, the earth being flat vs round, theories of creation vs evolution, tobacco use leads to lung cancer, the existence vs non-existence of global warming, or that some students are dumb vs all students can learn. Secondly, because visual or auditory memory is evident, doesn’t mean that this is a preferred style of learning. Finally, Kendrick, Cohen, Neuberg and Cialdini (2018) found three reasons why “psychological mechanisms warp rationality” (p. 4). Shortcuts in the human brain, also referred to as hueristics, confirmation bias, and social motivation are three underlying obstacles to thinking rationally about learning styles. I’ll focus primarily on confirmation bias, since it was also mentioned by Willingham (2009).

Confirmation bias is the tendency to “pay attention to some findings over others and to reinterpret mixed evidence to fit with preexisting beliefs” (Kendrick et al., 2018, p. 4). This is where our biases influence our thinking. For example, I enjoy a glass of wine every now and then. When I hear reports of the benefits of drinking wine, I pay attention and have this preference confirmed. If I hear a report that says no alcohol is good for me, I’ll immediately dismiss it as unconfirmed and unsubstantiated. My wine drinking habit is confirmed by my bias.

Kendrick et al. (2018) report that political and religious ideologies tend to support confirmation bias as well as stifle dissent. The lone voice of a wine drinker in a crowd of non-drinkers will not sway the group-think, but it can influence one person’s thinking. In a group of educators who believe in learning styles, a lone voice stating there is no research confirming this theory will not be heard by everyone, but could be heard and believed by someone. Kendrick et al. (2018) posit that confirmation bias can be overcome by changing our own perspectives first. There is hope that individuals will acknowledge the objective evidence presented by research (Kendrick et al., 2018; Willingham, 2009). One day, learning styles will be thought of in the same way we now view the earth – round and revolving around the sun.

Responses in conversation:

  • What caught my attention in this response was the harm that can come from an over reliance on this notion that students have a preferred learning style. Being labelled as something, such as an auditory learner, can be the beginning of confirmation bias. Learners are complex and learning is complicated. Putting one label on one child often limits their outcomes – just as the phrase ‘good job’ can limit an individual’s progress. I think that’s why I’ve dug more deeply into UDL (universal design for learning) in order to break this habit of thought about being one thing or another. The myth of average continues to influence educators’ thinking, just as the myth of learning styles does. Willingham’s (2009) call to educators to rely on their craft, rather than  science, when differentiating in the classroom, means that Faculties of Education have to get it right. New teachers shouldn’t be leaving the faculty with mis-information or mis-conceptions about learning styles or multiple intelligences. But it’s so hard to confront this, as Kendrick, Cohen, Neuberg, and Cialdini (2018) state, since there are factors that make it easier to believe learning styles exist, than it is to change our thinking.
  • You asked if tough and “rough treatment will always yield results or encouragement would cause harm”. I don’t think either rough treatment or meaningless praise will promote student learning or yield positive results. I think there’s a balance point between these two polar opposites in teaching, just as there is in parenting. I’m not there to be a friend, I’m there as an adult to guide and support. But, just as your personal experience with your history teacher shows, when one teacher leans too much one way or the other, it can be detrimental to student learning. The same happens in parenting, when reacting to a child’s tantrum with rough treatment or meaningless praise.I’m in the ‘tough love’ camp myself. Students will recognize and thank educators who are firm but caring teachers, who provide clear expectations, share critique not criticisms, and believe in their ability to excel toward personal goals. This, in my humble opinion, will counteract the constraints that learning styles or multiple intelligences can impose on student potential.

    With a push away from this notion of the ‘average’ learner (Rose, 2013), perhaps teachers will look beyond the similarities, or the notion of only being an auditory learner, and see the jagged learning profiles of each student. Fitting individuals into groups, for arbitrary learning events, can be as detrimental as fitting an ‘average pilot’ into a cockpit seat that wasn’t built for them. I tend to lean toward the idea that “every child is unique and valuable, whether or not they are intelligent” (Willingham, 2009, p. 165).

  • Your confirmation bias is showing! When you say “I need more evidence” you are reacting just as Kendrick, Cohen, Neuberg, and Cialdini (2018) posit the majority of people do, since there are three reasons “psychological mechanisms warp rationality” (p. 4). Even with more research, we tend to disbelieve because of heuristics (it’s easier and I don’t have time to find our more), crowd-think (everyone else thinks this is true), and cognitive bias (I just saw my student prefer an auditory modality therefore it must be true). Willingham (2018) states “When it comes to scientific theories, you can’t prove a negative proposition beyond any doubt” since “we can’t be certain it’s false” (p. 30). Just to clarify, Willingham (2018) states there is no proof that structuring teaching to suit learning styles will impact student outcomes.This is why global warming research faces such challenge, just as Galileo faced (he was placed under house arrest until he recanted his statement that the earth was not the centre of the universe) (Kendrick et al., 2018). The only way to combat this human tendency to discredit or disavow objective scientific research is by providing time to do the research or read the research, being open to new perspectives, and to be open to listening to dissenting voices (Kendrick et al., 2018). Knowing you are not alone in this cognitive struggle can also help.
  • What a great way to bring this topic to clarity for me. It brings me hope that a shift can happen. While those researchers who are firmly in the ‘learning styles’ camp could be the ‘Hems’ in the maze (see the Wikipedia article about Who Moved My Cheese), there’s hope that others (such as myself and classmates in this course) are actively ‘sniffing and scurrying’ to find the truth.

    You’ve said it eloquently: “I do think that it is quite important to teach our children/ students to be able to get out of their comfort zone by being the pioneers as teachers and be willing to change out styles of teaching to show flexibility and willingness that can be transferred to our audience.” As it’s been said since the times of Hericlitus, the only constant is change, since life, and learning is ‘flux’, and that one must find the truth on one’s own (Academy of Ideas, 2012 at the 4 min mark). Let’s hope that truth can be found by the predominant thinkers who think about learning styles.

References

Academy of Ideas. (2012). Introduction to Hericlitus. (video). Retrieved from https://youtu.be/M9CLktqAj9U

Kendrick, D., Cohen, A., Neuberg, S., & Cialdini, R. (2018). The science of antiscience thinking. Scientific American, 319(1), 36-41.

Mark, J. (2010). Heraclitus of Ephesus. Ancient History Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://www.ancient.eu/Heraclitus_of_Ephesos/

Marshik, T. (2015). Learning styles & the importance of critical self-reflection. TEDx Talk video. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=855Now8h5Rs&t=45s

Rose, T. (2013). The myth of average. TEDx Talk. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eBmyttcfU4

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Who moved my cheese. Retrieved November 17, 2018 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Moved_My_Cheese%3F

Willingham, D. (2018). Ask the cognitive scientist: Does tailoring instruction to “learning styles” help students learn? American Educator, 28-32.

Willingham, D. T. (2009). Why don’t Students Like School? A Cognitive Scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.