Myths about Learning

Keywords

70–20–10 rule; creativity; discovery learning; gender differences in mathematics; knowledge obsolescence; knowledge society; learning pyramid; learning style; memory; multiple intelligences; non-verbal communication; problem-based learning

Contents

Introduction

We go to school to learn, but what exactly do we know about learning and how do we make use of what we know in daily practice? In this first series of myths we will look at a number of popular (in other words, stubborn and very persistent) thoughts about how we learn – or don’t. Two different aspects come to light in this discussion. The first relates to “theories” surrounding learning. An example of this is all that has been written about learning styles, work forms, and knowledge versus problem solving. We will discuss questions such as: Are there different styles of learning? Are there different work forms that allow us to learn more or less? We will also look at what we need to learn: now that we can look everything up on the Internet, is all that knowledge really necessary? Is solving problems the best way to learn to solve problems? These different aspects will be discussed specifically in the first dozen myths or so.

The second relates to paradigms that people (researchers and teachers, but also politicians, administrators, advisers, etc.) use to justify their actions. The three most prevalent paradigms are the behaviorist paradigm, the cognitivist (also often called the instructivist) paradigm and the constructivist (and its offshoots social-constructivist and constructionist) paradigm. We take the time to discuss this here, before going to the myths. There are three reasons why we oppose this approach.

The first reason is because this way of thinking tends to separate and compartmentalize people into camps where one is for or against and as such stimulates dogmas and academic wars. This is the last thing that education needs. The second reason is that, strangely enough, at least two of the three schools of thinking are so closely related to each other that differentiation is absurd. If we look at cognitivism and constructivism closely we see the following:

Finally, thinking that one paradigm is sufficient for effective, efficient and enjoyable learning is as absurd as thinking that there is one best way of cooking. A top chef makes use of a wide variety of techniques (e.g., baking, frying, freezing), tools (e.g., paring knife, steam oven, blender) and ingredients (e.g., vegetables, meats, herbs, spices) to create meals that fit both the eater and the occasion. An educational designer or teacher should, in our opinion, work as and be considered to be a top educational chef and should not be limited by artificial limits on her or his art and science.

In what you are about to read, those readers who are of bad faith (i.e., those who think that the word instruction is a curse) might find a reason or two that seems to argue against change or in favor of boring lessons, without taking due account of the differences between pupils. Nothing could be further from the truth. As stated, a good teacher works with a carefully considered mix of different work forms, based on a number of different elements. In part, this can be a matter of personal preference, but it is also important to take account of the initial starting point of the pupils. We will show that styles of learning do not exist, but this is not to say that pupils do not differ in terms of interests. We will also question the appropriateness of particular work forms, but this is not to say that they are not excellent in other situations and for other purposes. A real education professional knows that there is no such thing as a “one-size-fits-all” approach, not for learners and not for groups of learners.

References

1. Anderson RC. The notion of schemata and the educational enterprise. In: Anderson RC, Spiro RJ, Montague WE, eds. Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1977:415–431.

2. Brown JS, Collins A, Duguid P. Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher. 1989;18(1):32–42.

3. Collins A. Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology Cambridge, MA: BBN Labs; 1988; (Technical Report No. 6899).

4. Rumelhart DE, Norman DA. Accretion, tuning, and restructuring: Three modes of learning. In: Klatzy JWCR, ed. Semantic factors in cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1978:37–53.

5. Spiro RJ, Coulson RL, Feltovich PJ, Anderson DK. Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading; 1988; (Technical Report No. 441).

6. Vygotsky LS. Thought and language Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1962.

7. Vygotsky LS. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1978.

8. Vygotsky LS. Thinking and speech. In: Rieber RW, Carton AS, eds. The collected works of L S Vygotsky, Volume 1: Problems of general psychology. New York: Plenum Press; 1987:39–285. (Original work published 1934).

Myth 1 People Have Different Styles of Learning

People are all different and so we all learn differently. This is a truism that is hard to deny. Because of this, for many teachers it feels intuitively right to say that there are people who prefer to learn visually, while others prefer to learn auditively, and yet others kinesthetically. We all know the type of pupil who needs to have heard everything (i.e., auditive style), who works in stark contrast to the pupil who remembers things by linking them to a movement (i.e., kinesthetic style). Then there are those who prefer verbal methods, who again contrast strongly with those who prefer to think in images.

Problems?

Is there a problem here,...