If you try to debunk Learning Styles Theory and you face unexpected resistance, start looking for the profit motive<\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Hmmm.<\/p>\n To be clear: learning styles theory just doesn’t have plausible research support<\/a>.<\/p>\n If and when we can debunk it, we certainly should<\/a>.<\/p>\n But, in my own experience at least, teachers who believe the theory often do so with the best of motives.<\/p>\n Mocking those motives — or, even worse, implying believers have wicked<\/strong> motives — seems unfair. And, likely to prove counterproductive.<\/p>\n 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?)<\/p>\n In the first place, MANY teachers learned about Learning Styles Theory\u00a0in their education programs<\/em>.<\/p>\n In fact, Blake Harvard — “The Effortful Educator<\/a>” — searched the websites of 9 major schools of education, and found that MOST referenced Learning Styles Theory positively<\/a>.<\/p>\n Can we be surprised that teachers believe what their professors teach them?<\/p>\n Equally important, this theory seems to align with much of our classroom experience<\/em>.<\/p>\n After all, daily classroom life suggests that\u00a0students learn differently<\/em>. Some students respond well to this<\/strong> approach, while others need another <\/strong>approach entirely.<\/p>\n So, it seems that Learning Styles Theory (helpfully?) explains these differences, and (helpfully?) suggests a coherent way to respond to them.<\/p>\n Why wouldn’t teachers believe a theory that a) we learned in graduate school, and b) aligns with our daily experience?<\/p>\n In fact, “unexpected resistance” to Learning Styles Theory often stems from an even deeper source.<\/p>\n Many dedicated teachers have been relying on it\u00a0for years<\/em>. Often, their self-definition as a good and caring teachers<\/strong> begins with or includes their fidelity to this theory:<\/p>\n “My students know I care about them\u00a0because I tailor my instruction to their learning style!<\/em>“<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 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.<\/p>\n Instead, we are — in effect — asking them to admit their their exemplary teaching practice was (at best) useless, and (possibly) detrimental. FOR YEARS.<\/p>\n That admission, of course, is incredibly painful and troubling.<\/p>\n For us to\u00a0mock 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.<\/p>\n If we shouldn’t accuse people of being charlatans (hint: I think we mostly shouldn’t), how should we contradict these misbeliefs?<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/braindevs.net\/blog\/\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/Learning-Styles-Vector-300x225.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nSurface Plausibility<\/h2>\n
Getting Personal<\/h2>\n
Plausible Alternatives<\/h2>\n