Imagine my pleasure and surprise to find both Sherman Dorn
and Dan Willingham posting comments on the “Learning Styles” blog at TIASL.
I have a kind of crush of Sherman Dorn (in a remote, scholarly
way, of course). He’s never afraid to take on educational blowhards, he admires
Mike Rose and he likes poking at data released by big-name research outfits. He
also frequently admits he’s wrong, or possibly wrong, and reading his blog is
kind of like walking into his (cluttered but intriguing) mind space—ideas
scattered around everywhere, in all stages of development. Here’s his comment:
I'm not sure why one
needs to invent a whole theory just to be reminded that people have strengths
and weaknesses, or to agree that teachers should be able to explain concepts in
multiple ways. The sin of Gardner's
MI and "learning styles" myths is that they reify what USED to be myth-busters
into new myths.
Well, I’m not sure, either. But academics and scholars from
Bourdieu to Piaget to Dewey have been merrily creating theories about learning
and society for ages, giving people something to argue about in grad school.
Meanwhile, millions of us have been in classrooms teaching kids, grasping for
useful mental models and intellectual constructs to support and fine-tune that
work.
I don’t think it’s particularly important whether these
ideas are new and trendy, or enshrined as Official Learning
Theories—reified—but knowing some things about learning preferences or acknowledging
that there may be additional important intelligences (or gifts, or talents)
than those we traditionally utilize in schooling are very functional and handy
ideas for teachers.
Most myths are based on a kernel of truth—you can
deconstruct and analyze the evidence, but you might also consider whether there
is embedded utility or veracity.
I agree that most literature about “learning styles” is
pretty feeble science. I also agree educators are prone to adopting these new
ideas without a lot of scrutiny, but I don’t think we’re alone in that. I
appreciate Dan Willingham’s comments, and will address them in the order they
were written:
[DW] There are a
couple of things you've said here that are in error. Regarding the Gardner quote near the
beginning of the piece you said
[NF] Willingham’s point: “Readers”
are wrong. We shouldn’t /couldn’t teach things other than the “kind of thinking
skills that make one successful in school.”
[DW] That wasn't my point at all. I
wasn't talking about what teachers ought to teach. I was speculation on why
there have been common applications of 's
theory that *he* disagrees with, has been dismayed by, and has sought to stop.
[NF] Backing up a bit—in the initial excerpt from your piece on multiple
intelligences, you noted that (quote) “readers made the natural assumption that Gardner’s
new intelligences had roughly the same meaning and so drew the conclusion that
if humans have a type of intelligence, then schools should teach it.”
In your article,
you made a clear distinction—using a schema which asserts the primacy of verbal
and mathematical facility in determining intelligence, or g--between "intelligence" and what you call "talents" or "skills."
You question Gardner's use of the term “intelligence” to describe bodily-kinesthetic or musical or
interpersonal/leadership abilities. Since you do not see these
skills/talents/whatever as “intelligences”—and do not link them to the thinking
skills that lead to success in school—then doesn’t that weaken any case for
deliberately including them in a school curriculum? So—weren’t you saying that
readers were wrong in their assumption that Gardner's intelligences were equally valid and important?
Gardner gave teachers
“permission” to provide targeted learning strategies to kids whose strengths
include physical grace and strength, an artistic eye, empathy, introspection,
leadership qualities and so on. He may also have given some consolation to
parents whose children are not what we conventionally think of as “good
students” but who grow up to become successful salesmen, choreographers, rock
musicians and (smiling) politicians—because the work they eventually do makes
the most of their natural intelligences. Most teachers
I know who have utilized concepts from Gardner's work find what Sherman
calls the “myth-busting” aspects of MI most valuable.
I am aware
that Gardner has expressed concern about the trivial and sort of goofy way that
some of his ideas have been put into action (‘naturalist” first graders forming
letters with twigs rather than writing them with pencils, that kind of thing).
I think this tendency to shoehorn educational theories into practice reflects
the thin body of technical knowledge in teaching (we’ll try almost anything, to
see if it works) and the shifting nature of epistemological truth in the social
sciences.
[DW]On learning styles: the difference
between *abilities* (e.g., being good at learning visual or auditory material)
and *styles* is not just semantic hair-splitting . . . ability concerns the
ease and effectiveness with which you can do something. ..style means you can
do a task, but might have a different way of doing it than another person.
There are huge differences between these statements in terms of cognitive
theory and (likely) in terms of classroom implications.
I agree that from the video it sounded
as though I was saying teachers need never pay attention to student differences
though what I meant was not pay attention to differences in learning styles,
because there is no support for the idea of learning styles. I made a follow up
video to try to correct that.
[NF] While I understand that there is a difference between the ability to do
something, and the way one typically does it—when applied to a discussion of
“learning styles” as commonly understood in educational practice, this semantic
precision is pretty blurry. This is, I think, where your “there is no such
thing as a learning style, but there is something like learning styles—preferences and strengths” statement appears.
OK, then. We won’t use the term “learning styles.” We’ll just say that it’s
useful for teachers to understand that students each have a unique profile of
preferred/most effective ways of learning—and that the type of content/material
being learned can also impact the effectiveness of a particular learning mode.
The utility of the widespread belief in learning “styles” (however
ill-defined or nonexistent) is that teachers are often surprised to realize
that they go, repeatedly, to their own preferred modes when teaching. Using
cheesy science (the ubiquitous on-line “learning style” quizzes, for example)
may drive a meticulous scientist like yourself crazy, but lots of teachers will
tell you that their practice changes for the better when they realize that
they’ve been stuck teaching in a way that feels comfortable to them, or that
replicates the way they were taught.
If a teacher becomes fluent in using multiple paths to learning, improving
her practice, is it important to discredit her understanding of the term
“learning styles” and substitute the more precise “adapted learning strengths
and preferences?” Has it harmed teacher practice for teachers to believe that their
students have learning “styles” and to make an effort to teach concepts in
diverse ways?
I guess that’s why I was bothered by the YouTube video. It was another
example of an expert stepping up to dissect and debunk a common and functional
teacher belief (creating an opening for the usual suspects to assert what
they’ve “known” all along—good teaching is good teaching and pedagogical theory
is baloney). Understanding that kids learn differently is an enormously
constructive idea for teachers to embrace. So is awareness that schools typically
honor only two of an array of intelligences (talents/skills/abilities) that
kids bring to school.
[DW] Regarding the differing abilities
with which children come to school: this really wasn't relevant to anything in
either my piece on MI or on learning styles. You seem to be inferring that I'm
in favor of some traditional education program and would denigrate anything
else. I don't know how you came to that conclusion from what I wrote. In my
articles and videos I've examined psychological theories about how thinking
works and the structure of knowledge and arguing that some of these theories
are incorrect. It's really not fair of you to ascribe views to me that I didn't
espouse.
[NF] And I sincerely apologize, if you think I’ve done so. One of the
problems in writing a personal blog is that you serve your own editor. In my
mind, the last four paragraphs are reflecting/riffing on the idea of the
hierarchy (your word) of “intelligence”—verbal and mathematical skills being
pre-eminent in defining true intelligence—and why it might be important to
explore your students’ learning preferences. They’re not about you, they’re
about the way many people assume hierarchies in learning.
[DW] You close by saying "The
biggest misconception is assuming that other people learn the way you do, or
valuing your particular strengths and preferences over your students’." I
agree with the second part and have never said differently. In regard to the
first statement, my point in the video is that there is no credible evidence to
support a different idea. If you know of such evidence, I'd love to hear about
it.
[NF] Frankly, I’m not sure which statement is which here—or what idea is
unsupported by credible evidence. And I’m not sure it matters. My point in
writing this was a kind of modest defense of a couple of ideas—multiple
intelligences and learning styles—that many teachers find helpful in examining
and developing their practice.
Like psychology, education is a field where theories and practices go in and
out of favor; the difference is that you don’t often find teachers amassing
evidence of the wrongness of popular concepts in cognitive psychology—whereas
nearly everyone feels free to explain what’s right and true in education.
I am actually a great admirer of your work, and have spent considerable time
in the past few months browsing your articles. (Not so much time with the
videos; I prefer to see rather than hear content.) I think you have raised a
number of interesting issues that shine new light on teaching practice. I
appreciate your visit to the blog, and the opportunity to dialogue.
raises a few questions about separating public and private, and putting your money where your mouth is. So to speak.
