Thomas Adam Johnson ict-design.org

ARTICLE BELOW1. What are some of important issues discussed in the article? (5 points)

The first and key note about this article is that this is a scientist’s argument against educational systems, which is largely comprised of teachers.

VAK teaching is becoming orthodox in the UK based upon its introduction in the US. (Julie Henry)

“After more than 30 years of educational research in to learning styles there is no independent evidence that Vak…has any direct educational benefits.” Therefore she deduces the approach is “nonsense”(Baroness Greenfield)

“It is when the senses are activated together … that brain cells fire more strongly than when stimuli are received apart.” (Baroness Greenfield)

“[The] learning style ... approach is theoretically incoherent and confused.” (Frank Coffield)

The labels in learning styles have “no scientific justification for … [the] terms” (Frank Coffield)

“We do students a serious disservice by implying they have only one learning style, rather than a flexible repertoire from which to choose…” (Frank Coffield)

2. Do you agree with the overall theme of the article? Why do you say so? (5 points)

No, I do not agree with the overall theme of the article. I also don't agree with the biased tone or the way that it has been presented: as an editorial piece which does not fully support either side’s argument with enough facts. This article seems more as if it was written to raise emotion through tabloid style rather then present information.

Turning to the meat of the article, while there are many good points the Baroness makes, her clear notion that ‘Learning Styles has no place in the educational system’ is too "cut and dry". I feel that no rationale, whether completely on track or completely debunk should be analyzed and then dismissed, for it may be reflected upon or approached differently to create a new starting ground.

It seems the Baroness has stated that since there is no empirical evidence containing any legitimate proof that a focus upon learning styles has any validity that it should completely be scrapped.

While Gardner himself states the reasoning behind the lack of empirical evidence is because “it leads to labeling and stigmatization.” <http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm>

[Gardner] once thought it possible to create a set of tests of each intelligence - an intelligence-fair version to be sure - and then simply to determine the correlation between the scores on the several tests. [Gardner] now believe[s] that this can only be accomplished if someone developed several measures for each intelligence and then made sure that people were comfortable in dealing with the materials and methods used to measure each intelligence. (1999.)

Thomas Adam Johnson ict-design.org

I see some sense with what Gardner is saying, but continue an argument about the data collection itself: What if the data collection for such an approach was fallible? What if there was an anomaly in the empirical evidence gathered which was creating skewed results? What if the amount of time for collection of data for the empirical evidence was not enough to prove results? What if this data collection was also done in certain confined area which may not have been appealing to a larger demographic where it could in fact prove very useful? (Asian Learning styles, versus African, versus American. etc.)

John White asks, “[D]o all intelligences involve symbol systems; how the criteria to be applied; and why these particular criteria are relevant [?]” (1997.)

It is for these continuing argumentative questions that I feel Greenfield’s quick dismissal should be dismissed. Her notions should not be taken lightly, but the lack of evidence for or against Learning Styles should only create more intrigue into the validity and value placed upon such an approach to education.

Rather then close an interesting case; let us reflect upon new and innovative approaches that may prove through empirical evidence to work for the student and teachers favor, as“[s]even kinds of intelligence would allow seven ways to teach, rather than one. And powerful constraints that exist in the mind can be mobilized to introduce a particular concept (or whole system of thinking) in a way that children are most likely to learn it and least likely to distort it. Paradoxically, constraints can be suggestive and ultimately freeing.” (Gardner, 1993.)

3. Suggest an alternative viewpoint to tackle the issues discussed in the article. (10 points)

Since ‘Learning Style’ categories may be fallible in a sense that they may have left out a particular grouping that may suit a student better or may have bad categorization altogether (Gardner, 1999.), I would approach the Baroness’ ideas that no one specific learning style should be catered to specifically, which is also what Howard Gardner had in mind (http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm) and add it to the idea that learner’s do in fact have an ideal approach that suits them best.

When doing so I would make sure not to provide for a specific learning style with inappropriate attention. By this I mean that I would not use only verbal, auditory or kinesthetic teaching in my class for an entire year. But since it was also said that it is almost impossible to have a lesson that, in fact, only catered to one learning style specifically (Dr. Edward Roy Krishnan, 2008.) I would not worry too much about applying only to one sense exclusively.

I would definitely argue against Greenfield that as teachers we should dismiss the notion that students prefer to receive information either by sight, sound or touch and I cite an example from my own teaching in a math class: <i>Many times a student cannot

Thomas Adam Johnson ict-design.org

understand a concept involving integer theory, but when this verbal / auditory experience becomes kinesthetic through the use of manipulatives, it becomes quite tangible to the student quickly. This in turn leads to quick comprehension of the theory I am trying to explain. Conversely, students in the same class may have real problems with the kinesthetic approach, but can rapidly understand through oral, visual and written explanation the same conjecture being presented.</i>

For the reasons which I am experiencing firsthand I cannot dismiss the fact that students demonstrate a preference for an explicit learning style at that moment in time, and on this basis I return to use whole brain approaches: clustering information; collaborating with others for curriculum overlap, allowing for student inquiry, providing multiple pathways and using a cognitive, affective and psychomotor approach conjunctively.

Almost every approach that is taken will have a bias to one specific learning style, but when these learning style approaches are combined, or ‘when these senses are activated together’ this is where the connection of the synapses in the brain starts to fire more readily. (Susan Greenfield, 2007.)

Thomas Adam Johnson ict-design.org

Professor pans 'learning style' teaching method

By Julie Henry, Education Correspondent, Sunday TelegraphLast Updated: 1:50am BST 30/07/2007

A leading scientist has dismissed the latest approach to teaching that has been endorsed by the Government and embraced by teachers.

Under the new system children are considered to have different "learning styles" and instead of being taught by the conventional method of listening to a teacher, they should be allowed to wander around, listen to music and even play with balls in the classroom.

But now Baroness Greenfield, the director of the Royal Institute and a professor of pharmacology at Oxford University, has dismissed as "nonsense" the view that pupils prefer to receive information either by sight, sound or touch.

She said that the method of classifying pupils on the basis of "learning styles" is a waste of valuable time and resources.

The approach, first introduced in the United States following research on brain development, is being adopted by an increasing number of schools, colleges and local authorities and forms a key part of the Government's drive for "personalised learning". In effect, it dismisses so-called "chalk and talk" teaching as inadequate.

Pupils are instead given questionnaires to discover if they prefer to learn through "visual, auditory or kinaesthetic" (Vak) teaching. Once identified, the teacher will allow a visual child to learn through looking at cartoons, pictures and fast-moving computer programmes. A "kinaesthetic" learner will be allowed to spread their work on the floor, wander round while they are thinking or learn through dance and drama. In some schools, pupils' desks are even labelled to indicate their learning styles.

According to Susan Greenfield, however, the practice is "nonsense" from a neuroscientific point of view: "Humans have evolved to build a picture of the world through our senses working in unison, exploiting the immense interconnectivity that exists in the brain. It is when the senses are activated together - the sound of a voice is synchronisation with the movement of a person's lips - that brain cells fire more strongly

 

Baroness Greenfield

Thomas Adam Johnson ict-design.org

than when stimuli are received apart.

"The rationale for employing Vak learning styles appears to be weak. After more than 30 years of educational research in to learning styles there is no independent evidence that Vak, or indeed any other learning style inventory, has any direct educational benefits."

Baroness Greenfield's heavyweight criticism will be welcomed by academics who have been trying to debunk the notion of learning styles, as it fast becomes education orthodoxy in the UK.

Frank Coffield, a professor at London University's institute of education, who reviewed 13 models of learning styles, insists that the approach is theoretically incoherent and confused.

"As well as Vak, I came across labelling such as 'activists' versus 'reflectors', 'globalists' versus 'analysts' and 'left brainers' versus 'right brainers'. There is no scientific justification for any of these terms," he said.

"We do students a serious disservice by implying they have only one learning style, rather than a flexible repertoire from which to choose, depending on the context."

Publishers wishing to reproduce photographs on this page should phone 44 (0) 207 931 2921 or email syndication@telegraph.co.uk