Mythbusting for Trainee Teachers

Jonathan Glazzard, Samuel Stones

• Publisher: Learning Matters
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781529730234
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Elementary Education

Teaching and education are awash with myths. This bookhelps you explore some of them andasks:

- Where does this myth come from?

- How do we know that it isn't true?

- Why does it matter that we challenge it?

Covering key teaching topics, itposes common mythsand explores what the research actually says.

Using research as a basis to explore what it true and what is false, it givesyou a more informed understanding and encourages important discussions about teaching and learning.

1 Learning styles and intelligence

The Myths

• Students have a preferential learning style
• There are multiple types of intelligence
• Intelligence is fixed

What will you learn?

This chapter addresses common myths in relation to our understanding of learning styles and intelligence. Psychological evidence is presented to support teachers to challenge the existing research in relation to learning styles. The chapter emphasises that this evidence demonstrates there are no benefits for learners in having information presented to them through their preferred style. It also argues that the commercialisation of learning styles theory has been problematic and has created confusion among educators in relation to credibility and impact. The chapter offers a case study to illustrate some effective practice and to encourage you to reflect on your current approaches. Additionally, this chapter presents literature and research to demonstrate how our understanding of intelligence has been challenged in recent years. Through this discussion, we address common myths in relation to multiple types of intelligence and the concept of fixed intelligence. Case study material is provided to highlight the implications of these assumptions in relation to our teaching and to support your understanding of effective practice.

What are the myths?

• Students have a preferential learning style.
• There are multiple types of intelligence.
• Intelligence is fixed.

Why should teachers challenge the myths?

The term ‘learning styles’ has often been adopted uncritically as part of the day-to-day vocabulary of teachers. The theory assumes that students have a dominant channel (visual, auditory or kinaesthetic) through which learning is optimised. Based on this assumption, it is assumed that if instruction is matched to the preferred style, then learning will be more effective. The theory has direct practical importance for teachers if it is accepted. Once a learning style has been assessed and identified through a learning style inventory, then teaching approaches can be adapted to enable the student to learn through their dominant style. There are several models (e.g. Honey and Mumford, 2000; Kolb, 1984), each accompanied by an assessment tool that seeks to identify a dominant style based on an individual’s responses to a series of questions about their learning behaviour. Each model has its own associated technical vocabulary (Coffield et al., 2004a, 2004b) and opposing categories, known as dichotomies. However, this theory is not supported by research evidence and potentially could restrict learning opportunities.

The second assumption is that there are varying forms of intelligence. The idea that there are multiple forms (domains) of intelligence is potentially problematic because within a single domain, students’ levels of intelligence can vary. Most learning tasks require students to draw on a range of intelligences to complete the task. In addition, the idea that intelligence is fixed can lead to teachers failing to provide challenging work for students with lower levels of perceived intelligence. In addition, viewing intelligence as fixed can limit students’ view of their own abilities and future learning potential.

Key research

This section presents the key research that critiques learning styles and the concept of multiple intelligences.

Learning styles

A belief in the value of learning styles theory has existed despite the prominent critiques of this theory. Research has found that many teachers across the world agreed individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred modality (Howard-Jones, 2014). Some academics have attempted to account for the popularity of learning styles theory (Riener and Willingham, 2010), but there is clear psychological evidence that there are no benefits for learning from attempting to present information to learners in their preferred learning style (Geake, 2008; Howard-Jones, 2014; Pashler et al., 2009; Riener and Willingham, 2010). Coffield (2012) argues that ‘in short, the research field of learning styles is theoretically incoherent and conceptually confused’ (p220). There is an absence of a unified and comprehensive theory and there is a lack of agreed technical vocabulary to underpin this theory. These shortcomings essentially weaken the theory.

The field of learning styles theory is incoherent and conceptually flawed (Coffield et al., 2004a, 2004b). The sheer number of dichotomies that the different models present, as well as the overlap between them, illustrates the lack of a unified theory. Ivie (2009) highlights how John Dewey rejected binary thinking (either/or thinking), which creates false dichotomies, and that in reality, sharp distinctions do not exist (e.g. activists/reflectors). There is no agreed technical vocabulary and no agreed theory to underpin the dichotomies (Coffield et al., 2004a, 2004b). Additionally, learning styles theory has become commercialised. The growth of the learning styles industry (Coffield et al., 2004a, 2004b) and the excessive number of models available serve to reduce the credibility of this theory. Coffield (2012) argues that the existence of 70 learning style instruments demonstrates the disorganised nature of learning styles. Without an agreed model or agreed vocabulary, this creates confusion among educators who are responsible for meeting the needs of their students.

Learning styles are assigned on the basis of an individual completing an assessment tool on which they make generalisations about how they might respond to specific challenges. However, individuals may not be able to provide a definitive response in relation to their learning behaviour; their responses may be socially desirable responses and they may feel constrained by the predetermined format of the assessment tool (Coffield et al., 2004a, 2004b). Coffield (2012), in his critique of learning style assessment tools, argues that context largely shapes how we behave. As individuals respond to various daily challenges, they will be required to draw on a range of modalities, and this undermines a theory that suggests there is a dominant learning style. The statements on learning style assessment tools are often decontextualised. One example of this is highlighted by Sternberg (1999) using the following example: ‘When faced with a problem, I like to solve it in a traditional way’. When faced with this statement, the reader must make a response based on the limited range of information given. In this example, it is not clear what type of problem is being referred to in this statement. Additionally, there is no reference to the context in which the problem has developed. The context can largely influence how people respond to problems. For example, problems in the workplace may need to be addressed differently to problems that arise within friendships, relationships or educational contexts. Some problems can be addressed individually. Others may need to be addressed collectively. However, the statement assumes that the problem should be addressed by an individual rather than a larger collective. It is not clear to the reader what is meant by a ‘traditional’ response to a problem, and it could be argued that some problems require an innovative rather than a ‘traditional’ solution (Coffield et al., 2004a, 2004b). Far too much is left to interpretation, and the reader is left to make a choice from a predetermined list on the basis of this interpretation, although it is highly unlikely that there will be a single way of solving a problem. However, the question nevertheless implies that this is the case. These arguments weaken the credibility of learning styles theory.

It is important for students to know how to enhance their learning by drawing on a wide range of modalities (Coffield et al., 2004a, 2004b), essentially because students need to use different modalities to complete different kinds of tasks. Effective learners use a range of learning styles rather than relying predominantly on one preferred style. According to Coffield et al. (2004a, 2004b), there is no substantial evidence that matching learning style to tasks (matching hypothesis) increases educational attainment. In fact, evidence from empirical matching studies is contradictory (Coffield et al., 2004a, 2004b). It is therefore unwise to base pedagogical decisions upon inconclusive research evidence. Coffield et al. (2004a, 2004b) argue that learning styles can artificially restrict students’ learning experience by limiting the channels through which learning takes place. Learning styles theory also leads to the assumption that learners have a fixed style of learning which is static (Coffield et al., 2004a, 2004b). This is an unwise assumption for both teachers and students because it limits the opportunities for learning.

According to Garner (2000), it is not clear whether Kolb is arguing for learning style traits or states. Therefore, it is unclear if Kolb was promoting the concept of learning styles or four stages of learning (Bergsteiner et al., 2010). There is, however, a substantial body of literature that has emphasised the usefulness of Kolb’s theory (Abbey et al., 1985; Kruzich et al., 1986; Nulty and Barrett, 1996; Raschick et al., 1998). Bjork and Bjork (2011) refer to one common assumption on which learning styles theory is based. Learning styles theory assumes that keeping learning constant and predictable will improve later retention. However, they found that varying the types of tasks that learners complete, as well as varying the learning context, in fact improves retention of knowledge and skills.

Case study

A primary school integrated visual, auditory and kinaesthetic approaches into lessons so that all children had opportunities to learn using these three channels. Teacher explanations were combined with visual modelling. This enabled teachers to demonstrate subject-specific knowledge, concepts and skills. All children had frequent opportunities to learn through rich first-hand experiences. They worked as scientists, historians, geographers, artists and designers. This gave them an opportunity to practise subject-specific skills. During investigative learning, teachers used direct instruction to enable children to make sense of their exploration.

Multiple intelligences

Charles Darwin was the first psychologist to measure intelligence directly, and during the early twentieth century prominent psychologists developed a series of tests designed to measure intelligence (Binet and Simon, 1916; Terman, 1916; Thurstone, 1938).

Traditional intelligence, aptitude and achievement tests had overemphasised logical and linguistic capacities (Gardner and Hatch, 1989). Logical-mathematical and linguistic skills were (and to a certain extent still are) predominantly the way through which intelligence was evaluated. This marginalises those learners who struggle with these aspects of the curriculum. IQ testing is one way of measuring general intelligence. Although the value of these tests has been disputed in the academic literature (Strydom and Du Plessis, 2000), other research has pointed out that they provide a useful indication of a child’s general cognitive abilities (Nettelbeck and Wilson, 2005).

However, theorists (Gardner, 1983, 1999) envisaged cognitive abilities as several forms of intelligence that are unrelated, rather than viewing general intelligence as an indication of cognitive ability. Despite these early advances in measuring intelligence, the work of Gardner later in the twentieth century (Gardner, 1975, 1982) began to challenge traditional views of intellect, which had emphasised how specific aspects of brain functioning were part of a single ‘semiotic function’ (Gardner and Hatch, 1989, p5). Research in the latter part of the twentieth century had suggested that the human mind was modular and that distinct psychological processes were evident when dealing with different kinds of mental functions (Gardner and Wolf, 1983; Gardner et al., 1974). There is now a consensus that intelligence represents an ‘ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, [and] to engage in various forms of reasoning to overcome obstacles by taking thought’ (Neisser et al., 1996, p77).

Gardner was concerned that this narrow measure of intelligence promoted by the traditional intelligence theorists failed to recognise that human activity draws on multiple domains of intelligence. Gardner developed a broader definition of intelligence that included problem-solving and practical forms of intelligence. He saw the human intelligences as relatively distinct. Thus, intelligence in one domain was not dependent on intelligence in another domain. In collaboration with his colleagues, Gardner carried out a systematic literature review on human intelligence. They examined the cognitive capacities of typically developing individuals as well as the cognitive capacities of prodigies, atypically developing individuals and savants. They found that individuals differ in their intelligence profiles and that there was no inevitable association between any two intelligences.

Multiple Intelligence (MI) theory was introduced by Gardner in his book Frames of Mind (Gardner, 1983). Initially, Gardner concluded that there were seven intelligences (linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, spatial, bodily-kinaesthetic, intrapersonal, interpersonal), and in 1995 he added an eighth intelligence (naturalistic). The assumption of the theory is that the intelligences are independent of each other and individuals often demonstrate an uneven profile in that some intelligences will be greater than others. In contrast, standard intelligence tests demonstrate a bias towards logical and linguistic skills. The assessment of intelligence using these tests is carried out artificially by removing a child from the social context in which learning takes place. Conversely, assessment of multiple intelligences is not decontextualised and takes place within a familiar social and cultural context (Gardner and Hatch, 1989) in which learning takes place, thus making the assessment more authentic. Almeida (2010) has argued that standard intelligence tests currently used in psychology are not significantly different to those used a century ago. This is despite advances in socio-constructivist learning theory, which has emphasised the importance of learning through dialogue within social and cultural contexts. Despite these developments within learning theory, a psychometric approach to testing intelligence is still the dominant approach (Almeida, 2010). The psychometric tests present items in an abstract manner and terminology is often vague and generalised. Gardner’s work on intelligence presents an alternative to the dominant psychometric approaches. Assessment of intelligence takes place within classroom contexts, and therefore the assessment has greater ecological validity than standard psychometric tests (Almeida, 2010). Intelligence relates to the ability to undertake a wide variety of problem-solving tasks, the ability to think in an abstract manner and the ability to infer relationships, thus highlighting the multidimensional nature of intelligence (Almeida, 2010). In addition, different individuals pursue different goals, and therefore it seems logical to argue that there are many different types of intelligence (White, 2006).

Gardner’s theory has several important applications; these include planning schemes of work that span all the intelligences, providing intervention programmes in areas of weakness or enrichment programmes in areas of strength for learners with special educational needs or gifted students (Klein, 1997). In addition, the theory challenges those schools that currently overemphasise logical-mathematical and linguistic knowledge to adapt the pedagogical approaches that are adopted so that the different intelligences are reflected in models of curriculum delivery.

However, MI theory has been critiqued. According to White (2005), ‘putting children into boxes that have not been proved to exist may end up restricting the education they receive, leading teachers to overly rigid views of individual pupils’ potentialities, and, what is worse, a new type of stereotyping’ (p9). Multiple intelligence theory has been rejected outright by researchers that support psychometric approaches to measuring intelligence (Brand, 1996; Sternberg, 1983), with some claiming that Gardner’s intelligences are styles of cognition rather than intelligences per se (Morgan, 1992). Although Gardner has emphasised that separate intelligences work largely independently, most activities tend to draw on several intelligences (Klein, 1997). Nettelbeck and Wilson (2005) emphasise that Gardner’s separate intelligences overlap rather than exist independently. For example, Klein (1997) highlights that conversation draws on both interpersonal and linguistic intelligences. Although Gardner has emphasised that pairs of intelligences may overlap or be cor...