Education as Science: A Dangerous Myth?

While driving to work last Monday, I was shocked to hear a report on NPR claiming that the long-held belief by educators that individuals exhibit different learning styles was a myth.  Throughout the day, the story was recounted in Twitter posts and newspaper headlines proclaiming, "Learning Styles Debunked by Scientists!"

The provocative headlines, of course, corresponded to the first day of school in many locations.  A day when news editors search for the ultimate back to school story.  It used to be a day when newspapers and the local news featured stories about excited youngsters excitedly climbing onto the school bus for the first time leaving behind tearful parents.  In the din of today's media, such human interest stories are no longer sufficient to capture the attention news outlets seek.

NPR based its story on a study published in Psychological Science in the Public Interest, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.  It was interesting to note that the study appeared in the journal in December of 2009, but for some reason became "breaking news" on September 29, 2011.

When I explored further, I learned that the study was a meta-analysis of research on learning styles that focused on the research designs used.  Any study that did not use an experimental design featuring randomization and a pre-test post-test format was discarded as invalid.  The actual report can be downloaded at the link below:
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pspi/PSPI_9_3.pdf

Those who know me, know that I am passionate about science.  Although far from a scientist myself, I am enthralled by stories of the latest developments in nanotechnology, high-energy physics or quantum mechanics.  My greatest passion, though, is learning.  Not just my personal learning, but also helping others to learn and appreciate the learning experience.

So, given my passion for science and learning, one would think that I would be right on-board with the psychologist/scientists.  But, I am not.  In fact, I think that the concept of scientific teaching has actually hurt education over the years.

In addition to the journal article, the NPR story referenced a professor at the University of Virginia, Dan Willingham, who contends that teachers should not try to tailor instruction to different kinds of learners, that instead we should look for similarities in how our brains learn.  That does make a certain amount of sense, but isn't that how public schools currently operate?  Don't we test children to determine similar aptitudes and behavior, then we group them together and teach them all the same?  Isn't that what has become known as "teaching to the mean?"

We hear time and again that today's schools are based upon the industrial model developed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.  Perhaps the most influential architect of that model was one Frederick W. Taylor, who introduced the concept of "Scientific Management."  Scientific management used data, most notably time-motion studies, to increase production and efficiency.  It also introduced a level of accountability as workers had to meet standards of performance lest they suffer adverse consequences.  Sound familiar?

NCLB's emphasis on "empirically" proven strategies, standards and accountability would certainly garner support from Frederick Taylor and his disciples.  In education, The purest manifestation of a "scientific" approach emerged in the late '70s and '80s with the introduction of Applied Behavioral Analysis.  ABA grew out of the behaviorist school of psychology and continues to have a voice in education, especially in the treatment of Autism.

The problem with "scientific" management or "scientific" teaching is that its focus is far too narrow for the dynamic environments we find in the 21st century.  This narrow focus constrains the model so that it can only impact the lowest levels of learning whether in the classroom or the workplace.  A scientific model, by definition, must focus on independent (the intervention) and dependent (the outcome) variables.  The learner plays an almost insignificant role in the process.  Where do higher-order thinking skills fit into such a paradigm, or are they soon to be debunked as well.

There are far more troubling issues facing education today than fidelity to empirically proven teaching methods.  A study by College of William and Mary professor Kyung Hee Kim shows a decline for the first time in creativity in America's school children.  Now that's worth worrying about!