Learning Styles Revisited

Recently, I reported that there is virtually no comprehensive research that supports the “learning styles” theory.  Actually, there are a huge variety of learning style theories which posit varying numbers of styles across an equally varying number of domains.  Brown, et al., in Make It Stick, being good scientists, qualify their assessment of these theories to say that there is no credible evidence for the theories, they admit that there are so many theories that few have been rigorously tested.  They do, however, offer us a terrific insight into what does have support.

Instruction that matches the mode of the subject with the mode of instruction does have a positive effect on learning.  Visual instruction for geometry, geography, or art history, for example  is most appropriate.  Verbal instruction in language arts would be the preferred mode.  It’s hard to imagine teaching any sport without having participants actually engage in that sport.  Research shows that all learners benefit by matching the mode of instruction to the topic taught.  That is a powerful piece of knowledge for the teacher. 

Ditch the Textbook?

Taken together, my posts point in at least one obvious direction:  it is abundantly clear in the literature of cognitive science that learners need to read - a lot!  Reading gives learners fluency which shows up in their speech and writing as well as oral reading.  When I direct students in musicals, it is the enthusiastic readers who typically earn the major parts.  They understand characters.  As I’ve reported before, readers, particularly those who’ve been encouraged or directed to read a variety of genres, build far greater background knowledge which they can then bring to a multitude of tasks both in and out of school.  I’ve even read that there is research that suggests a positive relationship between reading and improved math skills.

All that said, I find it altogether too common that classrooms don’t have time for reading.  There’s time for teaching reading, but little for reading.  Reading, I’ve been told, is what students are supposed to do when they go home;  there isn’t time in school for reading.  It is my fundamental conviction that once the code has been taught, most likely by the end of second grade at the latest, the foundation of reading in school should be reading, not instruction.  This is where the title of this post comes in.  If teachers are masters of their craft, then they know what’s taught in the reading curriculum and they can teach it, when it’s most appropriate, when students are engaged with their reading.

There is a popular blogger whose blog is titled “Ditch the Textbook.”  I borrowed my title from him, not because I wholly endorse eliminating textbooks, but because I think that textbook work can be trimmed - a lot - in favor of students practicing the fundamental skills that they need.  I’ve mentioned before the Accelerated Reader routine of “status of the class” where the teacher visits each child during the reading period and interacts with each student about their reading.  The interaction is, in a manner of speaking, a coaching session.  Progress and effort are noted.  The student’s current book is discussed and “teaching” takes place during the conversation.  New books are suggested or required.  It’s instruction, assessment on the fly, and warm personal contact on a daily basis.  Never did I have a class that did not, on a whole class basis, average a growth of less than two reading levels in a school year.  Students wanted to read and the classroom supported all student reading levels with hundreds of books in the classroom library.  They read books that they wanted to read, quite often within parameters set by me.  And, most became independent, enthusiastic readers who needed very little direction to maintain their reading both at school and at home.

ZPD: A Heuristic With Merit

"On any list of differences that matter most for learning, the level of language fluency and reading ability will be at or near the top. While some kinds of difficulties that require increased cognitive effort can strengthen learning, not all difficulties we face have that effect. If the additional effort required to overcome the deficit does not contribute to more robust learning, it’s not desirable. An example is the poor reader who cannot hold onto the thread of a text while deciphering individual words in a sentence."

Brown, Peter C. (2014-04-14). Make It Stick (p. 141). Harvard University Press. Kindle Edition. 

Reading the passage above reminded me of one of the central concepts in the Accelerated Reader “system”:  “zone of proximal development,” or ZPD.  A.R. urges teachers to carefully supervise student reading so that students read in range which allows for lots of practice at a comfortable level and a moderate and well-controlled amount of challenge.  If a child’s ability to read and remember text  is limited to, say, Magic Treehouse books, a Harry Potter book would not be a successful read, educationally speaking, no matter how much the child wanted to be like her peers and read the longer book.  

Throughout my career in the classroom, I kept the ZPD concept close at hand for all tasks.  No matter what the lesson of the day was in the math book, students who didn’t firmly understand its antecedents was not going to understand today’s lesson.  It’s one of classroom teaching’s greatest challenges:  how do you teach to the group when part of the group isn’t ready for what you’re teaching?

While I don’t have the answer to the question, I can urge teachers to keep the ZPD concept firmly in mind and to look for ways to individualize instruction whenever and wherever possible.  Brown follows the above passage with a discussion of identifying the strengths of individuals who are struggling and helping the learner define and rely on those strengths.  For example, research has shown that dyslexics, while struggling with the nuts and bolts of text, are often quite adept at understanding the big picture, that is, major concepts.  It becomes our mission, therefore, to identify what a child can do, build on it, and affirm it.  It will be that child’s strength throughout life.

Teaching or Learning?

A recent conversation with an educator got me thinking about how my role as an educator both in the classroom and as a frequent volunteer “felt” different than the way this teacher articulated her role.  As close as I can come to what I’m feeling is that to one degree or another, teachers differ on a dimension which I will call teaching/learning.

There are those whose focus is primarily on teaching.  They deliver lessons, they demonstrate, they assign, and they assess, which usually means assigning a grade.  Those who focus on learning, assess, assign, may give mini-lessons, and give information sparingly.  The learning focused ask many questions and, rather than giving answers, give key bits of information.

Of course, no teacher is all “teaching oriented”, nor all “learning oriented.”  It’s something of a continuum.  What I see as key here is the placement of assessment.  Is an assessment as summary judgement or is it an exploration of the frontiers of a child’s world?  Is education curriculum centric or is it learning centric?