Learning styles and the Labour Law Academy

Learning styles and the Labour Law Academy

A great deal is made about the need for educators to know the “learning style” of a student. Are you a visual learner? well then you must use visual aids to assist your learning and if you do so, you will become a much better student …….. and so on.

Surprise! This kind of rubbish is put out by learning ‘professionals’ as good advice. In fact it is nothing of the sort- there is no basis for the ‘learning style’ theory at all.

“The idea that students learn differently depending on their
personal preference for visual, auditory or kinesthetic cues is just a myth.”

Read here for more about this. Hyperlink to https://qz.com/585143/the-concept-of-different-learning-styles-is-one-of-the-greatest-neuroscience-myths/

The training presented by the LLA uses a range of approaches and methods. As a starting point students need to be proficient at reading English and a good level of comprehension is a great help (but reading something a few times until it is understood is also fine!). The aim is to provide a way for the student and lecturer to interact, and for them both to be able to check their understanding of the material. This is done by way of short tests (referred to as a ‘quiz’) during each course. By doing all these tests the student will have a good idea if she understands the material or not.

In the article the author writes: –
“Are you a visual learner who writes notes in a rainbow of different colors, or do you have to read something aloud before it will sink it? Chances are, you’ve been asked a similar question at some point in your life, and believe the concept of different “learning styles” is perfectly valid. But, as Quartz reported in December, we all learn in fundamentally similar ways. And, as New York magazine reports, the idea that students learn differently depending on their personal preference for visual, auditory or kinesthetic cues is just a myth.

In fact, it’s considered a “neuromyth,” which, as Paul Howard-Jones, professor of neuroscience and education at Bristol University, writes in a 2014 paper on the subject, is characterized by a misunderstanding, misreading, or misquoting of scientifically established facts.

Other examples of neuromyths include that we only use 10% of our brain, and that drinking less than six to eight glasses of water a day will cause the brain to shrink.

“Perhaps the most popular and influential myth is that a student learns most effectively when they are taught in their preferred learning style,” writes Howard-Jones.

Indeed, studies have shown strong cross-cultural belief in this concept. In 2012, researchers asked 242 teachers from the UK and the Netherlands whether various neuromyths were scientifically correct. The concept of auditory, visual, and kinesthetic learning styles was the most trusted myth: Some 93% of UK teachers and 96% of Netherland teachers believed it was true. (The second most commonly believed myth was that left- or right-brain dominance affected learning.)

In December, Philip Newton, professor at Swansea University’s College of Medicine, searched for “learning styles” articles freely available on research databases, to get a sense of the impression a teacher might get if they did a cursory search on the subject. He found that, though studies “do not really engage” with evidence showing that learning styles is a myth, 94% of current research papers start with a positive view of learning styles.

“Learning Styles do not work, yet the current research literature is full of papers which advocate their use. This undermines education as a research field and likely has a negative impact on students,” he wrote in his paper for Frontiers in Psychology.

The aforementioned evidence against learning styles is compelling. In 2004, Frank Coffield, professor of education at the University of London, led research into the 13 most popular models of learning styles and found there wasn’t sufficient evidence to cater teaching techniques to various learning styles. And a 2008 study by Harold Pashler, psychology professor at UC San Diego, was scathing. Despite the preponderance of the learning styles concept “from kindergarten to graduate school,” and a “thriving industry” devoted to such guidebooks for teachers, Pashler found there wasn’t rigorous evidence for the concept. He wrote:
Although the literature on learning styles is enormous, very few studies have even used an experimental methodology capable of testing the validity of learning styles applied to education. Moreover, of those that did use an appropriate method, several found results that flatly contradict the popular meshing hypothesis. We conclude therefore, that at present, there is no adequate evidence base to justify incorporating learning styles assessments into general educational practice.
So how did a false belief become so widely-held? In his paper on the subject for Nature Reviews Neuroscience, Howard-Jones argues that it’s not a result of fraud, but of “uniformed interpretations of genuine scientific facts.” The assumption behind learning myths seems to be based on the scientific fact that different regions of the cortex have different roles in visual, auditory, and sensory processing, and so students should learn differently “according to which part of their brain works better.” However, writes Howard-Jones, “the brain’s interconnectivity makes such an assumption unsound.”

Neuromyths arise, Howard-Jones argues, partly due to the technical language barrier that makes understanding neuroscience papers difficult for non-experts, and due to oversimplification of complicated scientific ideas. These myths are then “promoted by victims of their own wishful thinking” who are sincere but deluded in their belief that some eccentric theory will “revolutionize science and society,” he writes.
There’s no real difference between online and traditional classes Fact: A 2010 report from the U.S. Department of Education reveals that online students actually outperformed students who were learning the same material through traditional education. In fact when you take into consideration the unexpected impact on your preparation for your education and career, the outcomes are even more striking: networking, familiar with online tools, developing a “how to learn” strength, allowing for personal and professional development with a schedule that is flexible around travel, attending conferences, etc