"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 rl@well.com or visit us on the web [ http://ratthing.com ]. .