I was fortunate to follow the BC Teaching Styles Online Discussion Forum in July. I thoroughly enjoyed it and thought it might be of interest to see what we retired applied linguists get up to!
What is interesting is how these 'fashions' come and go on the education front in general.
Though it was 10 pm here, I was not the only person in Greece tuning into the British Council Teaching English webinar, a discussion forum on Learning Styles. In fact, there were around 140 of us, from all the airts.
First to
speak was Carol Lethaby, teacher,
teacher educator and materials writer, based in San Francisco. Carol began by
looking at the VAK model of Learning
Styles - relating to the visual, auditory and kinaesthetic styles of
learning.
She looked primarily at:
1. The Brain Function
She claimed that it was a
misconception to say that each learner has one sensory learning style, but that
these are all interconnected.
2 Attribute and Assessment
Here she
quoted the findings of Kratzig and Arbuthnott, 2006, who carried out research
where students were asked to describe themselves as visual or auditory learners
and then answer a questionnaire and self-report. No correlation was found between the
learners’ responses and their objective test performance. Other findings lead
to the same conclusion: there is no recognized evidence that knowing students’
learning styles helps the learning process any more than not knowing.
3. Why
assess and accommodate LS?
There is a
belief that matching the students’ learning styles and teaching mode will
enhance learning and that not matching will impede learning. This belief
constitutes the Meshing Hypothesis.
4. Meshing Hypothesis
Rogowski et
al, 2015, in testing this, found no significant relationship between the
preferred mode of learning, the teaching mode and the outcome. Therefore,
teaching to accommodate a learner’s preferred style does not enhance learning.
5. Commercial
Interests.
Carol said
there were vested interests in keeping the LS issue alive, that it’s a thriving
commercial area.
6. Alternative
ways to consider learner differences
Riener and
Willingham, 2010, say that we should look at other important dimensions and
consider other factors that influence learning. Carol’s personal area of
interest is that of prior knowledge.
Van Kesteren
et al, 2001, provided neurological evidence, using MRI scanning and measuring,
brain activity. There was evidence that when new information was being
absorbed, connections were being made with where old information was stored, so
prior knowledge was playing a role in learning.
This would indicate that we need to consider what prior knowledge our
second-language learners have in relation to content, mother-tongue language
and second language.
In the English language classroom, we can:
- Use pre-tasks – we may already be doing that without knowing why
- Activate background knowledge and build on that knowledge if we don’t have enough; we should consider how we can build that in before the task
- Recycle – build on what we know, use a spiral curriculum
- Find out about learners’ interests – this is known to be a motivating factor and is often related to prior knowledge
Carol brought us up to date with current research
and usefully suggested what implications this could have for the classroom.
------*-------
Phil
Dexter, the British Council, UK English Language Teacher Development
Adviser, was next to speak. He spoke generally, saying he didn’t see any
problem in terms of the issue of L S, which he saw as similar to learner
preferences, saying it depended on what you meant.
His main
approach is related to special educational needs and inclusive learning.
Through presenting images he tried to express how learners could feel in the
classroom. He stated quite rightly that LS are broader than the VAK model.
Though he stated his disapproval of labeling people in general, he proceeded to
use ‘labels’ that express special educational needs: physical, hearing and
visual impairment, cognitive differences, dyslexia, dyspraxia, autism, etc.. It
was interesting for me to see that only one grouping – the gifted and talented –
referred to a learner group who can often be sidelined. He claimed that while we use the rhetoric of
inclusion, what we practise is exclusion; that students are in class but are
not engaged.
His concern was that the traditional classroom
approach may not connect with neurodiverse learners and that we should
recognize cognitive differences as part of a natural spectrum of ways of
thinking. He mentioned some of the
challenges presented to such learners: memory, the organization of work and
tasks, receptive and productive language. With reference to the well-known
graphic of different children trying to look over a wall, he referred to the
concepts of:
Equality: having all do the same thing
Equity:
making reasonable adjustment
His solution
was that the wall itself- i.e. the barriers to learning – be removed.
He described inclusive education as not
marginalizing learners, or sifting or sorting them on the basis of
pre-determined judgements about what they can’t or should learn. Instead of
focusing on the kind of differences such learners have - e.g. copying from the
board, short attention-span – that we should notice what is of interest, what
they are doing well, how they are doing it and what preferences they
demonstrate? He wanted us to question what more we can do to support them in
their learning. He gave an example of his own difficulty with map reading where
the abstraction of information in the standard map format proved difficult for
him to process, whereas pictures of actual buildings and landmarks en route
would help him access his destination more easily. With reference to this
example, he stated that teachers were not reaching students as they should;
that we should be offering them options and possibilities so that they can show
their skills. His final question was how do we create pathways for learners to
make their choices?
This, for me,
raised several questions and problems:
- What specifically did Phil mean by ‘the choices’ that learners make?
- That focusing on what a child can do, does not entail development. We need to look at what he cannot do in order to set challenges and support him in developing to the next level.
- That learners with needs at both levels of the cognitive spectrum need to be catered for and, if their needs are complex, then at least some exclusive support may be needed. I recall the mother of a severely handicapped child complaining about how the use of euphemistic ‘softer’ terms were not helpful as they minimized the severity of such individuals, thereby possibly denying them access to the full support they required.
------*-------
Our final
speaker was Philip Kerr, teacher
trainer, lecturer and materials writer. He began by saying as a practitioner,
he was going to focus on LS in terms of vocabulary teaching. Where he claimed
that many talked of the LS VAK model, he echoed Carol’s point that there really
was no evidence to recommend such a focus.
He said there now was consensus that the Meshing Hypothesis does not
stand. He cited as typical an OUP blog post which advocated teaching vocabulary
through different LS, giving examples of using sticky notes to create word
associations for visual learners. He admitted that such an approach offers
variety, yet it’s not matching mode of instruction with learning styles that
fosters good learning, but encouraging activities of multiple representation.
He cited the problems he saw associated with
this approach:
- That there were vague and inappropriate language objectives: e.g the suggestion of writing lists of random compound words had a focus on LS rather than a real language objective.
- Failure to meet the needs of all learners: drawing a diagram of part of the body to accommodate the visual LS, is wrong and unhelpful. We are overlooking the properties of the word itself –e.g. its phonology – and in trying to tailor the lesson for particular LS, we are probably failing all of our learners.
- That there are important learning differences that are not being considered: age, prior formal learning experience, proficiency in L1 and L2, learning objectives, educational setting, etc..
Philip commented that in his experience he has
seen our profession jump on many bandwagons – currently he finds worrying the
perception that ‘technology is good’.
He believes we should be focusing on what the
learning outcome is. He cited the
example of drilling as being debunked as bad practice because of its
association with Behaviourism. He said that personally had never stopped drilling
and that a classroom practice may be good despite the underlying theory and not
because of it.
Philip disagreed with Phil on the
issue of LS and learner preferences being similar. He used apps for vocabulary
learning as an example. Many learners use such apps in a massive, last-minute
cramming bout before a test, and that those using this as a preferred study
mode are likely to be less successful. His point is that language preferences
should not necessarily be encouraged.
Two interesting questions emerged
from his informed, succinct talk:
- What will we as a profession learn from the LS issue?
- Is mindfulness going to be the next bandwagon?
------*-------
