EDUCATION
WHY URBAN MYTHS ABOUT EDUCATION ARE SO PERSISTENT – AND HOW TO TACKLE THEM
BY JAMES WILLIAMS
One of the most persistent ‘ edumyths ’ is learning styles – the idea that there are a number of styles of learning , such as visual , aural or kinaesthetic – and that certain children respond better if teaching is directed towards their preferred learning style .
Learning styles have been far too easily accepted by some schools and teachers despite the lack of evidence of their effectiveness and , despite learning styles being debunked , the concept still forms part of the formal school-based training of a number of teachers across a number of subjects . So why , in the face of such damning evidence , are edumyths still accepted and used by schools and teachers ?
CAT OUT OF THE BAG Studies from the fields of psychology and medical education have highlighted the futility of learning styles as an effective teaching approach . A systematic and critical review of learning styles catalogued 71 different learning styles models , 13 of which were identified as ‘ major models ’. Education scholars , Myron Dembo and Keith Howard , concluded in a 2007 paper on the use of learning styles in education :
“ Learning style instruments have not been shown to be valid and reliable ; there is no benefit to matching instruction to preferred learning style , and there is no evidence that understanding one ’ s learning style improves learning and its related outcomes .”
THE SPREAD OF EDUCATION LEARNING MYTHS From the ubiquitous ‘ Brain Gym ’ that flourished in schools in the late 1980s and early 90s , to the idea that some people use one side of their brain more than the other , or the ‘ fact ’ that we only use 10 % of our brain , exactly how these myths spread is a complex and difficult process to understand .
The blame has been laid at the door of university initial teacher training courses , as well as commercial companies , individual ‘ education consultants ’ and some teachers . Even the Department for Education ( DfE ) peddled the view that universities promoted ' useless ' theories in teaching and learning .
Yet , a survey by the Wellcome Trust , reported by the charity , Sense , about science showed that teachers : “ Commonly come across neuromyth-based methods by word-of-mouth – from their institutions ( 53 %), individual colleagues ( 41 %), and from training providers ( 30 %), who are often linked to those promoting neuromyths .”
ARE MYTHS NECESSARY ? Myths quite often have some basis in reality . For learning styles , there ’ s no doubt that people will report a preference for how they learn , but this does not mean they learn better using that style . Learning styles also gain traction in the education community because of a general conflation with a push to deliver content in the classroom in a variety of ways . How information is presented to children needs to be varied , if only to stop boredom kicking in . The best teachers have a variety of approaches that mix and match the best learning experiences for their children .
At this point , it ’ s worth remembering the Hawthorne effect : simply doing something different can have an effect and that effect can be a positive one , but the effect may not be real .
TRAINING IS KEY The move to sideline or even remove universities from initial teacher education and increase school-based teacher training programmes may have the opposite effect to that hoped for by the DfE . Instead of edumyths and ‘ useless ’ theories dying out , they might become more prominent and even more difficult to remove from teaching . Once misconceptions are implanted , they are very difficult to remove , and , if teacher education shifts further towards a school-based model of delivery , the potential for implanting misconceptions increases exponentially .
Teachers need two things to improve their practice and eliminate what doesn ’ t work in favour of what does . First , training in how to look beyond the attractive yet empty claims of the peddlers of educational snake oil and second , time to undertake effective , professional on-the-job training that has been shown to be both reliable , rigorous and effective .
James Williams is a lecturer in Education at the University of Sussex . www . sussex . ac . uk / profiles / 153595t
@ edujdw
103
EDUCATION
WHY URBAN MYTHS
ABOUT EDUCATION
ARE SO PERSISTENT
– AND HOW TO
TACKLE THEM
BY JAMES WILLIAMS
One of the most persistent ‘edumyths’ is learning styles – the idea that there are a number of
styles of learning, such as visual, aural or kinaesthetic – and that certain children respond better if
teaching is directed towards their preferred learning style.
Learning styles have been far too easily accepted by some schools and teachers despite the lack of
evidence of their effectiveness and, despite learning styles being debunked, the concept still forms
part of the formal school-based training of a number of teachers across a number of subjects. So why,
in the face of such damning evidence, are edumyths still accepted and used by schools and teachers?
CAT OUT OF THE BAG
ARE MYTHS NECESSARY?
Studies from the fields of psychology and medical education have
highlighted the futility of learning styles as an effective teaching approach.
A systematic and critical review of learning styles catalogued 71 different
learning styles models, 13 of which were identified as ‘major models’.
Education scholars, Myron Dembo and Keith Howard, concluded in a
2007 paper on the use of learning styles in education:
Myths quite often have some basis in reality. For learning styles, there’s
no doubt that people will report a preference �܈��^HX\���]\�\���YX[�^HX\���]\�\�[��]�[K�X\��[���[\�[��Z[��X�[ۈ[�HYX�][ۈ��[][�]H�X�]\�HوH�[�\�[�ۙ�][ۂ��]H\��[]�\��[�[�H�\�ܛ��H[�H�\�Y]Hو�^\ˈ�[��ܛX][ۈ\��\�[�Y��[�[��YY���H�\�YYY�ۛH�����ܙY�H�X��[��[��H�\�XX�\��]�HH�\�Y]Hو\��X�\�]�Z^[�X]�H�\�X\��[��^\�Y[��\��܈Z\��[�[�����'X\��[���[H[���[Y[��]�H���Y[���ۈ��H�[Y[��[XX�N\�H\����[�Y�]�X]�[��[���X�[ۈ��Y�\��YX\��[���[K[��\�H\���]�Y[��H][�\��[�[��ۙx�&\�X\��[���[H[\�ݙ\X\��[��[�]��[]Y�]��Y\˸�'B��]\��[�]8�&\��ܝ�[Y[X�\�[��H]�ܛ�HY��X���[\H�[���Y][��Y��\�[��[�]�H[�Y��X�[�]Y��X��[��HH��]]�B�ۙK�]HY��X�X^H���H�X[���H��PQшQP�USӈPT��S��VU����HHX�\]Z]�\�8�&��Z[��[x�&H]��\�\�Y[������[�H]B�NN�[�X\�HL��HYXH]��YH[�H\�HۙH�YHوZ\����Z[�[ܙH[�H�\�܈H8�&�X�8�&H]�HۛH\�HL Hو�\���Z[��^X�H��\�H^]���XY\�H��\^[�Y��X�[���\��[�\��[�����RS�S��T��VB��H[ݙH��Y[[�H܈]�[��[[ݙH[�]�\��]Y\����H[�]X[XX�\��YX�][ۈ[�[�ܙX\�H����X�\�YXX�\��Z[�[����ܘ[[Y\X^H]�HH���]HY��X��]�Y�܈�HH�K�[��XYق�Y[^]�[�8�&\�[\���&H[ܚY\�Z[���]^HZY��X��YH[ܙB���Z[�[�[�]�[�[ܙHY��X�[��[[ݙH���HXX�[�ˈۘ�B�Z\��ۘ�\[ۜ�\�H[\[�Y^H\�H�\�HY��X�[��[[ݙK[�Y��XX�\�YX�][ۈ�Y���\�\���\��H����X�\�Y[�[و[]�\�K�H�[�X[�܈[\[�[��Z\��ۘ�\[ۜ�[�ܙX\�\�^ۙ[�X[K���H�[YH\��Y[�ZY]H�܈و[�]�\��]H[�]X[XX�\��Z[�[���\��\�\��[\���[Y\��X[��\[�Y\�[�]�YX[8�&YX�][ۂ��ۜ�[[���&H[���YHXX�\�ˈ]�[�H\\�Y[��܈YX�][ۂ��JHYYH�Y]�][�]�\��]Y\���[�Y �\�[\���[ܚY\�[��XX�[��[�X\��[�˂��XX�\���YY��[����[\�ݙHZ\��X�X�H[�[[Z[�]H�]��\۸�&]�ܚ�[��]��\�و�]�\ˈ�\���Z[�[��[��������^[ۙ�H]�X�]�HY][\H�Z[\�وHY\��وYX�][ۘ[ۘZ�H�[�[��X�ۙ[YH�[�\�Z�HY��X�]�K�ٙ\��[ۘ[ۋ]KZ�؈�Z[�[�]\��Y[���ۈ��H���[XX�K�Y�ܛ�\�[�Y��X�]�K���Y]H�\��^H�HH�[��YH�\��\ܝY�HH�\�]K�[��K�X��]��Y[��H���Y]XX�\�Έ8�'��[[ۛH��YHXܛ���]\��^]X�\�YY]���H�ܙ[ً[[�]8�$����HZ\�[��]][ۜ
L�JK[�]�YX[��XY�Y\�
IJK[����H�Z[�[���ݚY\��
� JK���\�Hٝ[�[��Y���H��[�[���]\��^]˸�'B���[Y\��[X[\�\�HX�\�\�[�YX�][ۈ]H[�]�\��]Hو�\��^����˜�\��^�X˝Z���ٚ[\��ML�NM]�YZ��L�