College Education

The debate was already red hot before this video by Professor Daniel T Willingham from the University of Virginia (brought to my attention by Stephen Downes) added fuel to the fire. On the one side are the learning and development romantics, all voodoo and crystals, holding firm to their pseudo-psychological beliefs. On the other, the cold, clinical and calculating rationalists, trying to make sense of the multitude of interacting variables that impact on teaching and learning by resorting to the ultimate killjoy that is science. You can guess which side I’m on.

No-one doubts that learners differ in terms of personality and preferences, but whether these can be usefully categorised as learning styles is highly debatable and certainly unproven. Teachers and trainers do, anyway, have far more important issues to consider when considering their interactions with learners. By far the most important of these, as far as I’m concerned, is the nature of the learning to be achieved (concepts, principles, rules, facts, social skills, psychomotor skills, problem-solving skills, attitudes, etc.).

Obviously learner differences are important, but there are more significant issues than their personality and preferences, for example:

• their motivation to learn the subject in question (if the motivation’s not there, it has to be stimulated);
• their prior knowledge of the subject (novices need more structure and support);
• the extent to which they’ve learned how to learn (independent learners will be much less demanding);

And let’s not forget that we also have to work within the constraints set by time, budget, facilities, equipment, tools and skills. Yes, we have enough to think about, without trying to develop alternative routes through learning experiences to pander to some vague conception of individual preferences.

I don’t blame the learning styles believers; I blame those who’ve filled their minds with confusing and ultimately unhelpful theories dressed up as science. If learning styles do exist, go on somebody, prove it.

Source: Clive Shepherd