CON by Jason Neiffer

Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

Learning Styles: a Myth 1Running Head: Learning Styles: a Myth with Serious ConsequencesLearning Styles:a Myth with Serious ConsequencesJason P. Neiffer University of MontanaC&I 510, Fall 2010

Learning Styles: a Myth 2It is a persuasive argument that must be very luring to hard-working teachers: because all of our students are unique and different,

of course

they must learn differently. Any teacher faced with a classof 30 students

knows

that not all lessons

speak

to all students in the same way and frequently, changingup the delivery model seems to engage students at a level that seems impossible with “traditionallearning” methods do not seem to match. Plus, how is one to explain those learners that don't findsuccess in our classrooms? Certainly there must be an explanation of why students fail in our classrooms despite our best efforts otherwise. Born of these well-meaning feelings is the concept of learning styles. While learning styles are mentioned with hushed and reverent tones that border onreligious truth, a brave set of cognitive scientists, after years of research trying to explain theseconcepts, conclude that there is no evidence that such classifications exist. Despite hundreds of casualreference in educational literature, there is no conclusive study that proves that learning styles exist andworse, a number of for-profit educational groups have latched on to learning style theory to help selltheir cure-alls for this non-problem.There are countless references to learning styles in educational literature, ranging from how to best utilize e-learning in K-12 schools to how to best train employees in human resource practices.Many of these sources seem to conclude that learning styles are an obvious extension of our modernscientific study of the brain and its function. Fontichiaro (2009), for example, uses learning styletheory to justify adopting for adopting “21

st

century skills” in elementary library training, noting, in part, that “We now know much more than ever before about individual learning styles, learning pace,and preferred learning modalities. We know that children of similar intelligence may work at differentspeeds, follow different thinking paths, or process information differently,” without making anyreference to a study or proof that these learning styles exist. Other writers use learning styles to arguefor more individualized education, an argument articulated by Grasha (2002), who argues that collegeteaching should be transformed to be focused on the one-on-one experience. He uses learning styles as

Learning Styles: a Myth 3a justification for his advocacy, although admitting that most research seems to focus on the “traditionallearning environment.” Grasha also writes with Yangarber-Hicks that technology could be used anequalizer among learning styles, as technology provides different avenues to present content toclassroom learners. Grasha and Yangarber-Hicks also find no question in the theory of learning styles,writing that “there is no question that learning styles should be taken into account when teaching withtechnology” (2000). Others go as far as suggesting that even if debate exists about learning style, broad assumptions useful in the classroom can be drawn from the theory,

even if research disagreeswith the conclusion

(Moallem 2003).This advocacy transcends teaching and is often intertwined with political advocacy related toeducation. Governmental organizations have adopted learning styles advocacy, often uncritically, as part of their larger educational agenda (Revell 2005).With all of these references to learning styles and the advanced knowledge of the brain possessed by scientists and the educational community, certainly ample evidence must exist that these patterns are real. However, cognitive scientists argue that there is no support for learning styles.There is first a problem with defining learning styles and determining a functional vocabulary todiscuss the issue using similar terms. Even advocates of learning style theories find the problemdaunting. Pitts (2009) refers to “confusion” related to terminology concerning learning style research,citing one article that notes 127 different factors that impact learning styles. An opposite, but similar force, that confuses matters is the desire on the part of educators, schools of education and politicalleaders to develop a “silver bullet” to answer the problems of why schools don't always work with allstudents (Ansari 2008). This has the unfortunately impact of obscuring the debate, as the sheer number of learning style theories make arguing against the popularly held myth difficult (which may,unfortunately, include this paper) as it requires looking at each framework independently to discover itsfaults (Dembo and Howard 2007).

of 00

Leave a Comment