…a learning myth.
Hello and welcome to the 75th edition of our fortnightly newsletter, Things in Education.
As educators, we’ve all heard the terms learning styles and multiple intelligences. Howard Gardner, a renowned developmental psychologist and professor at Harvard University, developed the theory of multiple intelligences and wrote about it in his 1983 book, Frames of Mind. In the book, he claims that the human brain has different and independent networks for 8 to 9 major types of intelligences: linguistic, logical-mathematical, visual-spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal and naturalistic.
He then claims that identifying students’ individual intelligences and matching our teaching methods to them could enhance learning—and this is how the concept of learning styles was born.
Over the past 40 years, teachers, schools and education leaders across the world have based their lesson planning, teaching and even the school’s philosophy on this theory:
On the face of it, this looks like a wonderful approach—make learning easier for students by matching their learning style! The problem, however, lies in the fact that 1) there is no evidence-based scientific data to support this theory and 2) a teaching approach based on this theory is likely to be detrimental to learning.
So, let’s break this down and analyse what makes this theory a learning myth or misconception:
Myth 1: The human brain has different and independent networks for the major types of intelligences
Imagine the brain to be a set of various circuits. According to the multiple intelligences theory, each intelligence is a separate circuit that is completely independent of other circuits. Howard Gardner himself has stated that the independence of the intelligences is a crucial part of the multiple intelligences theory, and that if studies show that the different intelligences are not independent but correlated in some way, the theory will fall apart.
Neuroscience studies over the past 40 years have shown that the brain is not organised into different circuits or networks for different intelligences. In fact, the opposite has been proven—studies have shown, for example, that language and music have shared and overlapping networks. So, we see that the foundational assumption of this theory has no proven basis in science.
Myth 2: Catering to one type of intelligence leads to better learning
To bust this myth, we must first talk about what it means to learn a piece of information.
Information in our brain is stored in the form of interconnected webs in long-term memory. A new piece of information is said to be learnt when a new connection is formed between this new piece and an existing piece of information—imagine a new thread being created in the interconnected web. However, this new thread is weak to begin with, and just a single connection is not enough to hold it in place. That new piece of information must build connections or threads to many other existing pieces to form a large web that will hold it in place.
These new connections or threads are built when students have different experiences with the same information and when they use a variety of different senses to learn the same information. And so planning needs to change in this way:
We see that catering to just one or two types of intelligences or learning styles will lead to insufficient and weak connections in students’ long-term memory, while ensuring holistic learning experiences for ALL students will ensure several strong connections, which is the key to deep learning.
Myth 3: Ensuring that students understand easily leads to better learning
The argument that comes up next is usually this: Isn’t it easier for students to learn when it's in a style they prefer? Some of my students prefer to listen and learn, so why should I make it more difficult for them by asking them to read?
The answer to this is simple: Ease of learning does not lead to better learning. Our brains are lazy organs, determined to conserve energy at all costs. But learning needs connections to be formed between neurons in the brain, and this requires the brain to spend considerable energy. It will not do this if the information is presented in just the way it likes— the brain must work hard to make sense of what they are learning. So, good instruction must create “desirable difficulties” (Bjork, 1994) for the learner.
Learning experiences must not be designed to constantly keep students in a state of comfort—catering exactly to each student’s learning style is actually detrimental to their learning.
Dylan William puts it best when he says, “As long as teachers are varying their teaching style, then it is likely that all students will get some experience of being in their comfort zone and some experience of being pushed beyond it.” (Learning styles: what does the research say?)
The trap that we as educators must stop ourselves from falling into is of over-personalising teaching. A variety of experiences, some comfortable and some uncomfortable, are important for learning, and “learning styles” do not accommodate for that. The more flexible we help our students and their brains become, the better they learn and the better they learn how to learn.
If you found this newsletter useful, please share it.
If you received this newsletter from someone and you would like to subscribe to us, please click here.
Edition: 3.23
コメント