Tag: neuromyths

Our blogger will be taking the first two weeks of August off.

This post generated plenty of conversation when he published it last October.

---

 

I recently read a much-liked Twitter post that said (I’m paraphrasing here):

If you try to debunk Learning Styles Theory and you face unexpected resistance, start looking for the profit motive.

Hmmm.

To be clear: learning styles theory just doesn’t have plausible research support.

If and when we can debunk it, we certainly should.

But, in my own experience at least, teachers who believe the theory often do so with the best of motives.

Mocking those motives — or, even worse, implying believers have wicked motives — seems unfair. And, likely to prove counterproductive.

Yes, grifters exist. Yes, we should call them out. But most teachers who offer “unexpected resistance” can explain why — for reasons that have nothing to do with profits. (Honestly, if teachers were driven by profits, would we have joined this profession?)

Surface Plausibility

In the first place, MANY teachers learned about Learning Styles Theory in their education programs.

In fact, Blake Harvard — “The Effortful Educator” — searched the websites of 9 major schools of education, and found that MOST referenced Learning Styles Theory positively.

Can we be surprised that teachers believe what their professors teach them?

Equally important, this theory seems to align with much of our classroom experience.

After all, daily classroom life suggests that students learn differently. Some students respond well to this approach, while others need another approach entirely.

So, it seems that Learning Styles Theory (helpfully?) explains these differences, and (helpfully?) suggests a coherent way to respond to them.

Why wouldn’t teachers believe a theory that a) we learned in graduate school, and b) aligns with our daily experience?

Getting Personal

In fact, “unexpected resistance” to Learning Styles Theory often stems from an even deeper source.

Many dedicated teachers have been relying on it for years. Often, their self-definition as a good and caring teachers begins with or includes their fidelity to this theory:

“My students know I care about them because I tailor my instruction to their learning style!“

When we tell teachers that we simply have no evidence to support the theory (and, to be clear, we don’t), we’re not simply asking them to change what they do and believe.

Instead, we are — in effect — asking them to admit their their exemplary teaching practice was (at best) useless, and (possibly) detrimental. FOR YEARS.

That admission, of course, is incredibly painful and troubling.

For us to mock teachers (“look for the profit motive!”) for this painful struggle … well, I simply don’t understand how that approach will help. I can’t remember the last time that mockery helped me change my teaching practice for the better.

Plausible Alternatives

If we shouldn’t accuse people of being charlatans (hint: I think we mostly shouldn’t), how should we contradict these misbeliefs?

As I’ve written before, I do think this is a very difficult problem.

We really should contradict those false beliefs, but I’m not at all sure that doing so encourages people to adopt new ones.

My current approach relies on these steps.

First: rather that asking teachers to stop believing one thing, I encourage them to start thinking about something else.

My hopeful theory: the more time they’re thinking about, say, working memory, the less time they’re thinking about Learning Styles Theory.

Second: I don’t contradict in public. I try to chat with believers one-on-one.

Honestly, this approach includes perils. If I don’t contradict in public, others might believe that theory does have merit.

However, as noted above, I think increasing shame reduces the likelihood that new advice will stick.

Third: I provide research, and ask lots of genuinely curious questions.

I hope that peer-to-peer curiosity will ultimately change more minds than more confrontational strategies.

 

To be clear, I’m not certain that my approach has more merit than others. I certainly have no research suggesting that it will work.

But experience tell me that “supportive listening” beats “questioning motives” as a motivational approach.

If you’ve got suggestions and strategies, please share them!

I recently read a much-liked Twitter post that said (I’m paraphrasing here):

If you try to debunk Learning Styles Theory and you face unexpected resistance, start looking for the profit motive.

Hmmm.

To be clear: learning styles theory just doesn’t have plausible research support.

If and when we can debunk it, we certainly should.

But, in my own experience at least, teachers who believe the theory often do so with the best of motives.

Mocking those motives — or, even worse, implying believers have wicked motives — seems unfair. And, likely to prove counterproductive.

Yes, grifters exist. Yes, we should call them out. But most teachers who offer “unexpected resistance” can explain why — for reasons that have nothing to do with profits. (Honestly, if teachers were driven by profits, would we have joined this profession?)

Surface Plausibility

In the first place, MANY teachers learned about Learning Styles Theory in their education programs.

In fact, Blake Harvard — “The Effortful Educator” — searched the websites of 9 major schools of education, and found that MOST referenced Learning Styles Theory positively.

Can we be surprised that teachers believe what their professors teach them?

Equally important, this theory seems to align with much of our classroom experience.

After all, daily classroom life suggests that students learn differently. Some students respond well to this approach, while others need another approach entirely.

So, it seems that Learning Styles Theory (helpfully?) explains these differences, and (helpfully?) suggests a coherent way to respond to them.

Why wouldn’t teachers believe a theory that a) we learned in graduate school, and b) aligns with our daily experience?

Getting Personal

In fact, “unexpected resistance” to Learning Styles Theory often stems from an even deeper source.

Many dedicated teachers have been relying on it for years. Often, their self-definition as a good and caring teachers begins with or includes their fidelity to this theory:

“My students know I care about them because I tailor my instruction to their learning style!“

When we tell teachers that we simply have no evidence to support the theory (and, to be clear, we don’t), we’re not simply asking them to change what they do and believe.

Instead, we are — in effect — asking them to admit their their exemplary teaching practice was (at best) useless, and (possibly) detrimental. FOR YEARS.

That admission, of course, is incredibly painful and troubling.

For us to mock teachers (“look for the profit motive!”) for this painful struggle … well, I simply don’t understand how that approach will help. I can’t remember the last time that mockery helped me change my teaching practice for the better.

Plausible Alternatives

If we shouldn’t accuse people of being charlatans (hint: I think we mostly shouldn’t), how should we contradict these misbeliefs?

As I’ve written before, I do think this is a very difficult problem.

We really should contradict those false beliefs, but I’m not at all sure that doing so encourages people to adopt new ones.

My current approach relies on these steps.

First: rather that asking teachers to stop believing one thing, I encourage them to start thinking about something else.

My hopeful theory: the more time they’re thinking about, say, working memory, the less time they’re thinking about Learning Styles Theory.

Second: I don’t contradict in public. I try to chat with believers one-on-one.

Honestly, this approach includes perils. If I don’t contradict in public, others might believe that theory does have merit.

However, as noted above, I think increasing shame reduces the likelihood that new advice will stick.

Third: I provide research, and ask lots of genuinely curious questions.

I hope that peer-to-peer curiosity will ultimately change more minds than more confrontational strategies.

 

To be clear, I’m not certain that my approach has more merit than others. I certainly have no research suggesting that it will work.

But experience tell me that “supportive listening” beats “questioning motives” as a motivational approach.

If you’ve got suggestions and strategies, please share them!

I’ve got a problem, and I’m hoping you can help me.

Here’s the situation…

I work as a high school English teacher. And I’m also a consultant – presenting psychology and neuroscience research for teachers and students and parents.

In that consulting work, I often face this problem: teachers/parents/students believe – quite confidently – in some brain myth or another.

For instance:

When I talk with teachers about managing working memory load, I regularly get this question:

“Can we reduce working memory overload by aligning instruction with students’ learning style?”

When I talk about research into attention and distraction, I often hear this rejoinder:

“Yes, but: all the research shows that an enriched environment enhances learning.”

A discussion about student motivation often defaults to this baseline:

“Around here we remind students to have a growth mindset. That will get the job done.”

A comment about note-taking strategies prompts this response:

“Of course, we know from research that handwritten notes result in more learning than laptop notes.”

In these moments, how should I – the “outside expert” – respond?

We’ve Got Two Hands

On the one hand, I should – obviously – let them know they’re wrong.

First, because they are wrong (as far as research currently shows).

No: learning styles theories have not held up over time. We just don’t have good evidence to support them.

No: ‘enriched environment’ research doesn’t apply to schools. (It was initially done with rats; lots of research suggests that busy classrooms distract from learning. I tell this story in a recent book.)

No: mindset theory is not a slam dunk. This topic churns up lots of controversy, but my own view is…

…we’ve seen enough positive results to think something is going on there,

…and enough negative results to know we don’t have a good handle on the specifics yet.

And

No: the handwriting vs. laptop debate is nowhere near settled.

The second reason to highlight these errors: we don’t want their colleagues to believe these myths.

If I don’t contradict these false beliefs right away, they can easily propagate.

These two truths, however, face an ugly “on the other hand.”

On the Other Hand

When I speak up to contradict these myths, I’m pursuing two goals:

Change the mind of the person who made the comment, and

Encourage other listeners to adopt correct beliefs.

Here’s my awkward question:

does contradicting brain myths directly actually accomplish those goals?

Imagine I say:

“I’m so glad you’ve brought up learning styles. It turns out that the research just hasn’t supported this theory.”

Will the teachers who made those comments in fact change their minds?

Will others around them believe me?

Honestly, I’m not so sure…

A Compelling Backstory

Let’s ask this surprising question: why do people believe in learning styles?

Why do they believe that elaborate classroom decoration enhances learning, or that handwritten notes rule? Why do laptop notes receive so much confident hatred?

Almost certainly, teachers believe in these myths because some other consultant told them that “research says so.”

Or, they heard these myths at a conference touting “brain science!”

That is: teachers don’t believe these myths because they reject research. Teachers believe them because they embrace research.

In many cases, I suspect, they first heard that information at a PD day organized by their principal or district. In other words: they were once professionally expected to believe this myth.

Teachers are not, for the most part, stubborn flat-earth luddites. Instead, they have used these (seemingly) research-based strategies for years. Those strategies might even seem to help.

Why, then, should they change those beliefs? Just because some new guy (me) shows up and says “today’s research shows…”?

The Big Question

So, here’s my problem.

I really must correct brain myths.

And, I’m really unsure that “correcting brain myths” directly will work.

For the last few years, I’ve adopted a 3-step strategy in this situation:

First: I don’t contradict in public. Embarrassing people rarely inspires them to change their opinions.

Instead, I offer strong, research-based alternatives. (“Rather than focus on learning styles to reduce working memory load, I would …”)

Second: I ask that teacher curious questions in a one-on-one conversation:

“Where did you first hear about learning styles? Which version have you tried? What research have you explored? Have you looked at recent studies?”

Once rapport develops, I’ll mention that more current research hasn’t supported the learning styles hypothesis. I might even offer to send links and share resources.

Third: I include school leadership. Most principals and leadership teams I’ve worked with know common neuromyths, and want to root them out.

In-school leaders know better than I the best places to intervene: perhaps a departmental conversation, or a future faculty meeting. That is: they know how to spread the word widely without singling out and embarrassing any one teacher.

I wish I were sure these methods always work. But I simply don’t know.

And so, here are my questions to you:

What approach would be most effective with your colleagues?

What approach would be most effective with you?

If, for instance, you feel entirely certain that handwritten notes work better than laptop notes, what could I say to influence your thinking?

Would it, in fact, help to contradict you at that moment, in front of your peers? (“Let me explain why that study is so obviously flawed…”)

Did the research-based link above open new avenues for your thinking?

Would you rather have a one-on-one conversation about that research?

Honestly, I’m open for suggestions!

TL;DR

We really must correct brain myths in education. And, I’m really unsure about the best way to do so.

I’m hoping that you’ve got helpful suggestions…

If you’ve been near the internet recently, you know that Learning Styles Theory just ain’t true.

For a refresher, you could read the definitive research finding on the subject here.

Or, you could read this blog’s take on the myth.

If you’ve got Dan Willingham’s Why Don’t Student’s Like School? handy, you could reread chapter 7. Or, you could read Willingham’s article on the subject in the New York Times.

In the world of cognitive science, “learning styles” is right up there with “flat earth.”

Deeper Understanding

If we’re going to persuade people to give up this false belief, we should probably have a good understanding of their actual beliefs about learning styles.

It turns out, we’ve surveyed people about the prevalence of that belief. But, we don’t know much more than “yes” or “no” about it.

What precisely do they believe when they say they “believe in learning styles”?

A research team from Michigan wanted to know. So, they surveyed several hundred adults in the US to find out. Their results are, predictably, depressing. And also unpredictable in many ways.

So, on the depressing end of the scale: 96% of non-teachers endorse learning styles theory.

We shouldn’t feel too boastful however, because 91% of teachers do too.

Let that sink in for a moment. Imagine that 91% of doctors believed that balancing the humors would  heal their patients, and so bled people when they contracted a disease.

Ugh.

Generally, respondents believed that…

…people are predisposed to a learning style at birth,

…we can discover a person’s learning style when they’re quite young,

…different learning styles result from brain differences, and

…students with different learning styles will thrive in different kinds of classrooms (and careers).

That’s a whole lotta false belief right there.

Deeper Still, Some Glimmers of Hope?

At the same time, these surveys revealed some limitations as well.

Respondents believed that…

…learning styles are NOT determined at birth. (“Predisposed,” yes. “Determined,” no.),

…our learning style CAN change,

…we might have DIFFERENT learning style in various disciplines,

…learning styles don’t result from our GENETIC make-up, and

…we might have MORE THAN ONE learning style.

This second set of beliefs allows a little room for hope. In the first place, they contradict the beliefs listed above, and so create useful cognitive dissonance.

In the second place, they suggest some flexibility we might try to extend.

If, for instance, you DON’T believe that a learning style is determined at birth, maybe you’re can open to the idea that we all learn in multiple perceptual ways.

So too if you already DO believe that we can have more than one learning style.

If we can highlight this cognitive dissonance, and work with this kind of flexibility, we might be more effective in persuading people to move away from learning styles theories to others that have real research support.

Other Findings

The Michigan researchers noticed several other patterns as well.

First: they found that some people are all in on learning styles. That is, they focus on the certainty of the first list above.

But, others have more flexible, uncertain beliefs about learning styles. That is, they think of a learning style as more changeable than as fixed. (You might think of this as the “growth mindset” vs. “fixed mindset” version of learning styles beliefs–although the researchers don’t use those phrases.)

Second: researchers found, the teachers likeliest to endorse learning styles are those working with younger students.

In my view, this research suggests we really need to focus on information efforts on teachers in those years. After all, young students might be particularly susceptible to learning-styles messages from their teachers.

Third: strangely, the two most prevalent learning styles are thought to be: visual and kinesthetic.

Teachers, for instance, think that more than 90% of their students fit in those categories (56% visual; 36% kinesthetic).

Where do those beliefs come from? Perhaps we hear the message “there should be less teacher talk,” and infer that students aren’t “auditory learners.” And, when we hear the message “students learn by doing,” we infer that students are “kinesthetic learners.” (To be clear, I’m simply hypothesizing.)

The Big Picture

For many readers, these surveys may lead to a sense of despair. So many false beliefs; so little time to correct them.

At the same time, I do think this kind of research opens real possibilities. Once we understand the details of these scientific misconceptions, we can tailor more effective efforts explain how learning really works.

Over on Twitter, Blake Harvard has started a lively discussion about the persistence of Learning Styles Theory.

Given that the theory has been so widely debunked, why does it — zombie-like — stagger on?

To answer this question, Harvard checked out the websites of the top ten schools of education in the US. He searched for “learning styles,” and explored the first page of the search results.

His findings? Of those first pages:

One school (Columbia Teachers College) included a link that debunked the myth.

Two schools had no relevant mentions.

The remaining seven (including the ed school I attended!) included links to a neutral or positive description of learning styles.

Frying Pan, Meet Fire

Since posting his results, Harvard has raised the stakes.

In this twitter post, he invited readers to check out their own ed schools’ pages to see what they found.

The grim responses will dismay you. I haven’t tabulated the numbers — the list keeps growing — but the “roughly 70%” level seems plausible.

Imagine, for instance, that medical schools were still teaching miasma theory to explain cholera. Or that law schools were teaching that it’s unconstitutional for women to vote in federal elections.

In effect, that’s happening in today’s schools of education.

An Alternative, Additional Explanation

Perhaps this myth persists because our professional schools teach it. (Or, fail to root it out.)

Perhaps it persists because — you might want to sit down for this one — it’s mostly false but partly true.

For example: we do learn material better if we have many different ways to access a memory.

If I say: “I’m thinking of an actor from Australia,” you might or might not know who I’m talking about.

But:

If I say: “I’m thinking about an actress. She’s from Australia. She was in that movie about Virginia Woolf. And she was married to Tom Cruise,” you’re MUCH likelier to figure out that I’m talking about Nicole Kidman.

Instead of calling up 2 neural networks (profession, people from Australia), I’ve called up 5 (profession, gender, people from Australia, Virginia Woolf movies, people married to Tom Cruise.)

So, too, if you believe learning styles theory, you’re likely to teach everything multiple ways (visually, auditorily, kinesthetically). That is, you’re giving students three distinct cues to access a particular memory.

This strategy WILL help students learn better, but NOT because some are visual learners and others are auditory learners.

If this explanation is true, then we have to go beyond “the theory is wrong.” We need to say “this part of the theory works for this reason, and that part works for that reason. But, the theory itself isn’t correct.”

That message requires more nuance, but might be more effective in persuading teachers — and schools of education — to update their understandings of teaching and learning.

---

A note on credit. I believe that this “mostly false but partly true” hypothesis comes from The Learning Scientists’ blog. Alas, I haven’t been able to locate the precise source. Credit for this idea shouldn’t go to me, but … at the moment of writing this post … I can’t determine who really gets it. I’ll update the post once I find out.

---

[Updated 6-7-19] Yana Weinstein-Jones has helpfully pointed me to the Learning Scientists source. It is this blog post, by Carolina Kuepper-Tetzel. I recommend it highly.