Thomas Adam Johnson ict-design.

org

ARTICLE BELOW
1. What are some of important issues discussed in the article? (5 points)

• The first and key note about this article is that this is a scientist’s argument
against educational systems, which is largely comprised of teachers.
• VAK teaching is becoming orthodox in the UK based upon its introduction in the
US. (Julie Henry)
• “After more than 30 years of educational research in to learning styles there is no
independent evidence that Vak…has any direct educational benefits.” Therefore
she deduces the approach is “nonsense”(Baroness Greenfield)
• “It is when the senses are activated together … that brain cells fire more strongly
than when stimuli are received apart.” (Baroness Greenfield)
• “[The] learning style ... approach is theoretically incoherent and confused.”
(Frank Coffield)
• The labels in learning styles have “no scientific justification for … [the] terms”
(Frank Coffield)
• “We do students a serious disservice by implying they have only one learning
style, rather than a flexible repertoire from which to choose…” (Frank Coffield)

2. Do you agree with the overall theme of the article? Why do you say so? (5 points)

No, I do not agree with the overall theme of the article. I also don't agree with the biased
tone or the way that it has been presented: as an editorial piece which does not fully
support either side’s argument with enough facts. This article seems more as if it was
written to raise emotion through tabloid style rather then present information.

Turning to the meat of the article, while there are many good points the Baroness makes,
her clear notion that ‘Learning Styles has no place in the educational system’ is too "cut
and dry". I feel that no rationale, whether completely on track or completely debunk
should be analyzed and then dismissed, for it may be reflected upon or approached
differently to create a new starting ground.

It seems the Baroness has stated that since there is no empirical evidence containing any
legitimate proof that a focus upon learning styles has any validity that it should
completely be scrapped.

While Gardner himself states the reasoning behind the lack of empirical evidence is
because “it leads to labeling and stigmatization.”
<http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm>

[Gardner] once thought it possible to create a set of tests of each intelligence - an

intelligence-fair version to be sure - and then simply to determine the correlation between
the scores on the several tests. [Gardner] now believe[s] that this can only be
accomplished if someone developed several measures for each intelligence and then
made sure that people were comfortable in dealing with the materials and methods used
to measure each intelligence. (1999.)
Thomas Adam Johnson ict-design.org

I see some sense with what Gardner is saying, but continue an argument about the data
collection itself: What if the data collection for such an approach was fallible? What if
there was an anomaly in the empirical evidence gathered which was creating skewed
results? What if the amount of time for collection of data for the empirical evidence was
not enough to prove results? What if this data collection was also done in certain
confined area which may not have been appealing to a larger demographic where it could
in fact prove very useful? (Asian Learning styles, versus African, versus American. etc.)

John White asks, “[D]o all intelligences involve symbol systems; how the criteria to be
applied; and why these particular criteria are relevant [?]” (1997.)

It is for these continuing argumentative questions that I feel Greenfield’s quick dismissal
should be dismissed. Her notions should not be taken lightly, but the lack of evidence for
or against Learning Styles should only create more intrigue into the validity and value
placed upon such an approach to education.

Rather then close an interesting case; let us reflect upon new and innovative approaches
that may prove through empirical evidence to work for the student and teachers favor, as
“[s]even kinds of intelligence would allow seven ways to teach, rather than one. And
powerful constraints that exist in the mind can be mobilized to introduce a particular
concept (or whole system of thinking) in a way that children are most likely to learn it
and least likely to distort it. Paradoxically, constraints can be suggestive and ultimately
freeing.” (Gardner, 1993.)

3. Suggest an alternative viewpoint to tackle the issues discussed in the article. (10
points)

Since ‘Learning Style’ categories may be fallible in a sense that they may have left out a
particular grouping that may suit a student better or may have bad categorization
altogether (Gardner, 1999.), I would approach the Baroness’ ideas that no one specific
learning style should be catered to specifically, which is also what Howard Gardner had
in mind (http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm) and add it to the idea that learner’s
do in fact have an ideal approach that suits them best.

When doing so I would make sure not to provide for a specific learning style with
inappropriate attention. By this I mean that I would not use only verbal, auditory or
kinesthetic teaching in my class for an entire year. But since it was also said that it is
almost impossible to have a lesson that, in fact, only catered to one learning style
specifically (Dr. Edward Roy Krishnan, 2008.) I would not worry too much about
applying only to one sense exclusively.

I would definitely argue against Greenfield that as teachers we should dismiss the notion
that students prefer to receive information either by sight, sound or touch and I cite an
example from my own teaching in a math class: <i>Many times a student cannot
Thomas Adam Johnson ict-design.org

understand a concept involving integer theory, but when this verbal / auditory experience
becomes kinesthetic through the use of manipulatives, it becomes quite tangible to the
student quickly. This in turn leads to quick comprehension of the theory I am trying to
explain. Conversely, students in the same class may have real problems with the
kinesthetic approach, but can rapidly understand through oral, visual and written
explanation the same conjecture being presented.</i>

For the reasons which I am experiencing firsthand I cannot dismiss the fact that students
demonstrate a preference for an explicit learning style at that moment in time, and on this
basis I return to use whole brain approaches: clustering information; collaborating with
others for curriculum overlap, allowing for student inquiry, providing multiple pathways
and using a cognitive, affective and psychomotor approach conjunctively.

Almost every approach that is taken will have a bias to one specific learning style, but
when these learning style approaches are combined, or ‘when these senses are activated
together’ this is where the connection of the synapses in the brain starts to fire more
readily. (Susan Greenfield, 2007.)
Thomas Adam Johnson ict-design.org

Professor pans 'learning style' teaching

method
By Julie Henry, Education Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 1:50am BST 30/07/2007

A leading scientist has dismissed the latest approach to

teaching that has been endorsed by the Government and
embraced by teachers.

Under the new system children are considered to have

different "learning styles" and instead of being taught by
the conventional method of listening to a teacher, they
should be allowed to wander around, listen to music and
even play with balls in the classroom.

But now Baroness Greenfield, the director of the Royal

Institute and a professor of pharmacology at Oxford
University, has dismissed as "nonsense" the view that
pupils prefer to receive information either by sight, sound
or touch.
Baroness Greenfield
She said that the method of classifying pupils on the basis
of "learning styles" is a waste of valuable time and resources.

The approach, first introduced in the United States following research on brain
development, is being adopted by an increasing number of schools, colleges and local
authorities and forms a key part of the Government's drive for "personalised learning". In
effect, it dismisses so-called "chalk and talk" teaching as inadequate.

Pupils are instead given questionnaires to discover if they prefer to learn through "visual,
auditory or kinaesthetic" (Vak) teaching. Once identified, the teacher will allow a visual
child to learn through looking at cartoons, pictures and fast-moving computer
programmes. A "kinaesthetic" learner will be allowed to spread their work on the floor,
wander round while they are thinking or learn through dance and drama. In some schools,
pupils' desks are even labelled to indicate their learning styles.

According to Susan Greenfield, however, the practice is "nonsense" from a

neuroscientific point of view: "Humans have evolved to build a picture of the world
through our senses working in unison, exploiting the immense interconnectivity that
exists in the brain. It is when the senses are activated together - the sound of a voice is
synchronisation with the movement of a person's lips - that brain cells fire more strongly
Thomas Adam Johnson ict-design.org

than when stimuli are received apart.

"The rationale for employing Vak learning styles appears to be weak. After more than 30
years of educational research in to learning styles there is no independent evidence that
Vak, or indeed any other learning style inventory, has any direct educational benefits."

Baroness Greenfield's heavyweight criticism will be welcomed by academics who have

been trying to debunk the notion of learning styles, as it fast becomes education
orthodoxy in the UK.

Frank Coffield, a professor at London University's institute of education, who reviewed

13 models of learning styles, insists that the approach is theoretically incoherent and
confused.

"As well as Vak, I came across labelling such as 'activists' versus 'reflectors', 'globalists'
versus 'analysts' and 'left brainers' versus 'right brainers'. There is no scientific
justification for any of these terms," he said.

"We do students a serious disservice by implying they have only one learning style,
rather than a flexible repertoire from which to choose, depending on the context."

Publishers wishing to reproduce photographs on this page should phone 44 (0) 207
931 2921 or email syndication@telegraph.co.uk