"LEARNING STYLES" AND THE CLASSICAL EDUCATION
(Posted 2009-12-20 15:24:28 by Ray Lopez)
One of the big ideas in the world of education (both K-12 and
postsecondary) is the whole notion of "learning styles." By this, we mean
that people have different ways of learning and recalling knowledge and
information. For example, some people consider themselves "visual"
learners, which means they need to see pictures and words related to the
concepts under study. Ask any college student, and s/he will profess to
being of one "type" or learning style or another.
But is there any scientific evidence for the whole concept of "learning
styles?" Sure, there is a lot of money spent in developing learning tools
suited to different learning styles, and people will swear up and down that
they are this type or that type. But have learning styles ever been
demonstrated empirically?
In the most recent issue of _Psychological Science in the Public Interest_,
Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, and Bjork address this very question, and their
answer is quite startling. As it turns out, there is virtually NO
empirical evidence to support the idea that people with a certain "style"
of learning will benefit from teaching suited to their "style".
The authors reviewed a lot of literature, looking for properly-done studies
that demonstrated this effect. They found none. The few studies they did
come across showed that there was no effect. More precisely, they found
that there was no interaction effect between a person's learning style and
a matching teaching style. If there was such an effect, you would expect
that people who are of learning style "A" would only benefit from teaching
if that teaching was designed for learning style "A". Learning style and
teaching design should interact, but in fact there's no evidence to suggest
that they do.
This is a huge finding, but not surprising. I can recall some 20 or so
years ago, when experimental psychologists blew up the whole myth of "left
brain" versus "right brain" thinkers. It used to be thought that "left
brain" thinkers were more concrete and analytical, and "right brain"
thinkers were more abstract and creative. As it turns out, there's no
basis for this idea. That's not to say that there aren't differences
between, say, concrete and abstract thinking styles. Rather, there is
simply no evidence to suggest that these types of thinking styles are
determined by lateralization of brain functions.
Similarly, just because there are not yet any empirical findings supporting
the idea of distinct learning styles, that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, and Bjork make a point of saying that studies
looking at this issue need to be conducted, and conducted well. Valid and
reliable criteria and tests need to be developed to determine an
individual's learning style. Then teaching methodologies need to be
developed for each type of learning style. Finally, it needs to be
demonstrated that individuals identified with a particular learning style
benefit the most from teaching that fits their particular style. Pashler,
McDaniel, Rohrer, and Bjork have described this well in their paper, and it
should serve as a useful framework for anyone wishing to do research in
this area.
In the meantime, I wonder about all of the other teaching fads that have
influenced education over the last few generations. Why is it that we in
the United States spend more per child on education than any other nation
in the world, and yet produce such mediocre results? I suppose everyone
has ideas on why this is, and it is probably the case that everyone is at
least a little bit correct. I think some of the blame may be placed on the
training and education of teachers in the U.S. Most of the education
departments in the U.S. have been heavily influenced by post-modern
thinking. Post-modernism tells us there are no universal truths, no
differences between the sexes, and that one moral system is just as good as
any other. The only successful accomplishment of post-modernism has been
to utterly drain the arts and humanities of any significance, of any
meaning. For hundreds of years, the arts and humanities were the most
important components of any advanced education. Now they are nothing more
than punchlines to jokes told by college graduates who can barely put two
sentences together.
Fortunately, there is a movement afoot to bring back more traditional forms
of education, the so-called "classical education" movement. This movement
seeks to bring back into the fold the study of Greek and Latin, and of all
the classical works of western thought, from Homer to Einstein. Most of
the K-12 classical education movement is taken up by home schoolers, and I
suspect that it will remain that way for a very long time. But in the
post-secondary realm there are a few colleges that have launched degree
programs focused entirely on the study of the western canon, and which
employ the Socratic method in the educational process.
Thomas Aquinas College [
http://thomasaquinas.edu/ ] in Santa Clara Paula,
CA is one such school. Since their founding in the early 1970s, they've
established a reputation for being one of the best liberal arts schools in
the nation. Critics of this type of education typically argue that
students are being prepared for great careers... in the past. I vehemently
disagree with this. By being exposed to a classical education, students
are being prepared for life in at least 3 ways:
1. The "great books" curriculum [
http://thomasaquinas.edu/curriculum/index.htm ] at places like Thomas
Aquinas exposes students to the sum total of knowledge upon which our
civilization is based. Anyone with a deep understanding of these basics
will be prepared to understand and learn about anything.
2. The great works are presented in a unified manner, such that a student
learns of the connections between different fields of knowledge. These
connections occur as regular patterns across time, and a student who can
recognize them has a distinct advantage.
3. The Socratic method teaches students to think on their feet, and to
learn to think fast and work well with others. Combined with mandatory
essays, this type of education will equip a student to be prepared for any
type of work requiring the communication and understanding of sophisticated
knowledge.
I doubt very much that such an approach to education would ever catch on
with even a small minority of folks. Still, I feel that the fads and
post-modern influences that the educational field has suffered over the
last few generations has been extremely harmful. At some point, we may be
able to jettison such nonsense, and go back to the search for truth and
meaning. I think the only useful thing that postmodernism has taught us is
that we can and will get ourselves into a meaningless mess when left to our
own "rational" devices To successfully pursue the search for truth and
knowledge, we need to look outside of ourselves.
--------
There are no comments on this post.
To submit a comment on this post, email
[email protected] or visit us on the web
[
http://ratthing.com ].
