Thinking about Learning Styles

 In a recent post, I looked at what we "believe" about language-learning. Probably, this should really have been about what we think (an ongoing process of intellectual evaluation linked to evolving experience) rather than what we believe.

In this post, I am going to look at the controversial topic of Learning Styles and VAK. Seeing as the title of this blog is The Nice Man, I will try to narrate my experience and thoughts, honestly and without seeking to offend. It may or may not turn into a rant.

In the early 2000s, we used to have a drop down day for "University of the First Age." Pupils and staff got T-shirts and maybe even a water bottle. During the day, pupils learned how to use mnemonics to remember the numbers 1 to 10 in Japanese. They had some talks on "the brain". And I was always assigned to "Multiple Intelligences."

Because it was the most interesting and useful. Obviously I didn't want to be doing the numbers 1  to 10. Not on a drop down day. And the brain one, run by the Head of Science, was deeply problematic. "You only use 10% of your brain." I tried to have a conversation as to whether this was meant as a metaphor, but he wasn't interested in that conversation, so I kept clear. Which left Multiple Intelligences.

And it was OK. It was basically an examination of what we mean by "intelligent." And a valuing of a range of abilities we all have. And stating that there's more to life and to learning than being good at reading and writing. In a classroom with a different dynamic and a chance to focus on the nature of learning.

And in my teaching, it may have helped me think that perhaps a lot of my lessons were similar, perhaps wordy, and lacking in variety. Both in terms of activities, but also resources and input. You can see a post all about what my lessons were like in the early 2000s here.

After a couple of years, the quiz at the end of the Multiple Intelligences session became more and more of a focus. Along the lines of "What sort of learner are you?" I always skipped it, because I couldn't reconcile the idea of Multiple Intelligences all in play at different levels, with the idea of being a particular "type" of learner. They seemed to be in direct contradiction. Then it was brought in to tutor time and was meant to be some kind of basis for teaching and learning in the school.

As a chance for learners to reflect on their experience and their perceived strengths and weaknesses, it was a nice quiz. If it made them feel they were being listened to, given a chance to reflect and take charge of their learning, then that's not a bad thing. Or as a bit of pseudo science to make everyone feel as if they know what they are doing, then there would be at least a placebo effect. And in our school, that was as far as it went.

I know that in other schools and in Initial Teacher Training it went further. I've already said that I couldn't understand how Multiple Intelligences turned into a Single Preferred Learning Style. It seemed the exact opposite. But worse, if a pupil self-diagnosed as having a weakness, for example, in Reading... then why would your response be to deliberately neglect Reading? To help them "learn" by sidestepping the areas they said they most needed to develop?

The answer to that question is linked to the current 2020s fad for "Knowledge". If you believe that there is "important knowledge" that pupils have to learn/memorise, then it makes sense to do that in whatever way works best, swerving perceived obstacles. I am going to stop here and think. One day I will be brave enough to post about "The Knowledge Curriculum" and how close it is to the previous fads many of its devotees now sneer at. I'll just end with the point I started with. Please, let's make sure these are things we actively think about and continue to question.