So this is my first ever guest blog. Simon Andrewes (@simonbandrewes), who wrote a response to my learning styles piece has now written a reponse to my previous response to his response(?). Simon has a huge amount of experience teaching and has written acrticles for MET, ETP and HLT. He has very kindly given me permission to post this here. It's a good read -Enjoy (^_^)
[IN REPLY TO THE IMPORTANCE
OF RESEARCH, Russell Mayne. MET 22.4. Oct 2013. 53-55]
Russell Mayne wrote about
research in MET22.2 and in particular about Learning Style (LS) theory, for
which, he insisted, there was no evidential support. I replied in MET22.3
saying I found a “weak” version of LS theory to be useful for my teaching
practice. In MET22.4 Russell criticised my position on various fronts, so I
would like an opportunity to defend and clarify it.
The significant divide between English language theorists
and teachers that Russell says I “further reinforce” - whereas in fact all I do
is observe it - is hardly a controversial issue and indeed Russell himself provides
quotes from two highly respected theoretician-practitioners, Scott Thornbury and
Henry Widdowson, that back me up. I feel flattered and partially vindicated by
the good company I find myself in.
Russell takes me to task on several fronts:
1.
I do not recognise the complexity of the research-practice
problem;
2.
My argument is based on a fantasy in which I set
up straw man villains against noble teachers;
3.
I dismiss research without the bother of having
to do it or read it;
4.
I use my lengthy classroom experience to position
myself as the voice of authority, which is tantamount to an “anything goes” attitude to teaching;
5.
I make too much of the weak version of LS which
may be true but is at the same time obvious, uncontroversial and un-noteworthy;
6.
I mix up LS and MI (Multiple Intelligences)
theory.
3.
So Russell is right in saying I dismiss research
but he is rather unkind in saying I do so without the bother of having to do it
or read it myself. In fact, I enjoy research and think it can be useful in its
own right, without any direct reference to classroom practice. Indeed, this kind
of research may be the most valuable in its disinterest in proving or
disproving practical considerations. I would challenge Russell’s implication
that it is a bother to carry out research and think it can be a privilege, or a
pleasure. Just as teaching can be.
4.
In dismissing research, I use my experience to
position myself as the voice of authority, says Russell, backing up his
argument with a quote from Widdowson’s Defining
issues in English language teaching: “Teachers who claim to be simply
practitioners with no interest in theory “conspire against their own authority,
and against their own profession”. Now,
throw me a quote by Widdowson and I am likely to catch it in midair and swallow
it down like a trained seal. I agree 100% with Widdowson’s argument, as I often
do.
5.
Moving on to the essence of the LS debate, Russell
says the weak version amounts to nothing more than saying different students
have different study preferences but there is no evidence that people learn
better if they get information through a preferred sensory channel.
Here Russell is talking about
research evidence and seems to take it for granted that evidence from classroom
practice doesn’t count. Yet, with Penny Ur (ETP issue 21 Oct2001Check It Out 5 - 8), I would insist that
a or the primary and certainly a valid source of meaningful theory is
that drawn from our own experience. Secondary (research/theoretical) sources can
and should be drawn on to confirm or contradict conclusions for our teaching
convictions that we reached via our primary source. As such, I find that the weak
version of LS theory provides me with a check, a reminder that not everybody
learns in the same way as I do and it makes me more sensitive to other learning
paradigms. In fact, I am convinced I have built up evidence of this in
classroom observations of the way learners learn.
As for the hard version of LS
theory, I can happily agree with Russell when he says there is no research
evidence to support it.
6.
Not only do I simplistically confuse LS with
“study preferences”, to return to Russell’s critique, I mix up LS and MI theory,
in which Howard Gardner – Russell tells us - redefines the concept of aptitudes
as “intelligences”, and which also, apparently, lacks any scientific
credibility.
I do not want to speak of
scientific credibility, but I can see there are things in MI that serve a
purpose. If different students have different aptitudes, then it seems
reasonable to suppose those varying aptitudes will have some bearing on how
they learn things. To follow up an example cited by Russell, I confess to
crawling across the floor with the youngest learners I have taught and whether
I was fostering “bodily-kinesthetic intelligence” in doing so I cannot say. But
did it work? Well, I think it might have, and we all enjoyed it and I certainly
don’t think it got in the way of learning. I felt at that moment the child
needed that crawling activity and would not have learnt so well without it. I
would probably do it again, thinking I was furthering learning.
So, asks Russell finally, do I
think we should teach according to our students’ star signs or the colour of
their aura, as these have, in his words, as much credibility as the theories I
am defending? Well, no, I don’t actually, because I have no primary evidence
that these things work in practice. But I would not be loath to give them a go,
if I saw a positive effect in it.
In conclusion, “experience is a good bet in the absence of
evidence”, Russell concedes. But here, he shows he does not really value the
primary evidence of the classroom. He is talking about the secondary evidence
of the university, the ivory tower. And thus the gulf between classroom
practice and theory is maintained by Russell’s reluctance to accept the
classroom teacher’s ability to draw a directly meaningful theory from her own
experience. And the two communities continue to talk past each other.
Thanks for posting this Russell. I don't think the last word has been said! Simon
ReplyDelete