CAM, an alumni rag that I'm sent...
<autobiographical-note>
(and which, much to MrsK's chagrin...
<tangent>I wonder what happened to that word to make it lose favour at the turn of the eighteenth century. Perhaps it's anti-French prejudice – a bit rich when you think about it:</tangent>
From the Collins Online Dictionary
...doesn't go immediately into the recycling...,
<explanatory-note>
I use the Letters section of the latest edition as an indication of what's worth reading in the previous one.
</explanatory-note>...)
</autobiographical-note>
... has a short feature with the title...
<ducking-and-covering>
(and no, I still refuse to use the Newspeak "titled"; for more details than is good for your sanity, see the <rant /> here. In short, for socio-historical reasons, British English needs two words to do duty for three meanings, whereas American English has a more comfortable two x two; so the Chicago Manual of Style can pontificate as much as it wants. I know what I know.
</ducking-and-covering>
...This Idea Must Die: <object-of-iconoclastic-target-practice>. Last month the idea in the crosshairs was 'Learning styles determine outcomes'.
Visual, auditory, reading/writing and kinesthetic. The concept of learning styles has been with us since the late 1990s and early 2000s...
<autobiographical-note>
Aha – that's why it was so popular when I was studying for my PGCE in 2004-5.
</autobiographical-note>
...,when it was accepted that to optimise learning, teachers must identify the particular learning style of a child and align the way they presented information accordingly.
Only, it’s a myth [sic...
<bugbear>
I do wish people would stop using this cliché ('myth' to mean widely-held mistaken belief or misapprehension. Still, we know what the writer means, so perhaps I should get a life; I've been banging on about this since the mid '70s, and this boat has not only sailed; it's way beyond the horizon.
</bugbear>
. ..]. There is no evidence whatsoever to back it up. The idea has been extensively and empirically tested to see if children learn the most in conditions that align with their preferred ‘learning style’. They don’t. Yet a systematic review published in the journal Frontiers in 2020 found that teachers still believe they do. In fact, the review found that 89 per cent of teachers self-reported [sic...
<bugbear>
Oh dear. Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.
</bugbear>
...] a belief in matching instruction to learning styles
Source
 |
| 'bogus interventions and frameworks': from CAM article |
To be clear: the writer is not saying 'Teachers should spout stuff regardless of the individual abilities/interests/needs of their students. That would be ridiculous. Of course it's part of the teacher's job to be aware of these things, and to tailor their delivery accordingly. He is simply saying aardVARK hunters [Visual, Auditory, Reading/writing and Kinesthetic] are wasting their time and energy.
The letter I sent to CAM may not see the light of day, but here it is:
Professor Astle is right: 'bogus interventions and frameworks' are rife in the world of education. In fact, I think Michael Gove's notorious dismissal of experts was directed at these self-styled experts peddling non-evidence-based 'solutions'. When, as a very mature student, I took my PGCE more than 30 years after my time at Cambridge, one of my eyebrows was almost permanently raised.
He identifies teacher-training as a suitable locus for the introduction of sanity. But earlier in his article he cites the fly in the ointment: that 89% of self-confessed obscurantists already ensconced in the profession. During traditional teaching practice, students will perforce be exposed to this sort of indoctrination. If PGCE students are to survive their training (most of my colleagues on that course just drank the Kool-Aid)...
<inline-ps>(and went on to increase that 89% figure)</inline-ps>
...Professor Astle and his colleagues need to provide persuasive and unarguable evidence that commonly-held beliefs are wrong.
That last sentence presents a wan hope. One or two academic papers aren't going to turn the tide of belief in this 21st-century snake oil. The PGCE is a trial by paperwork. Whatever that paperwork says, the influence of the teaching practice staff-room, featuring those 'bogus interventions and frameworks', will outweigh it. Paul Simon was right:
No comments:
Post a Comment