The myth that I was most surprised to find discredited by far was the myth about learning styles. I was not necessarily shocked by the findings of the article (the article did not disprove the concept of learning styles per se, but it pointed out how the past studies are not valid). This is an idea that I have learned about from K-12 teachers, college professors, and fellow teachers. I was very surprised to find out that an idea that was so widely believed might not be true. Now, I'm not saying that I think there is zero credibility to the idea of learning styles. Between myself and the many teachers I know I can find a lot of anecdotal evidence. But part of being a scientist is setting aside anecdotal evidence and relying on facts.
Speaking of science, the skeptic in me was quick to dismiss the myth covering how much people remember by how the information is presented to them (specifically 10% of what they read, 20% of what they see, and 30% of what they hear, etc.). First off, if this were actually credible, there's no way the numbers would work out that nicely. Data never works out that nicely. Second, many of the categories are poorly defined. Like the author pointed out, what's the difference between reading and seeing?
I think the best way to "appropriately" change minds is by providing people with articles just like these. Most people respond well to new information like this unless the topic is personal to them. If the myth I am challenging is one that my boss deeply believes it might get a little tricky, but I think facts and information are the best tools.
Well said. Again, the learning styles article simply says that if you categorize students into a learning style and provide them instruction in that particular style, they don't perform better. Providing multiple means of representing knowledge is a core principle of UDL, which we cover next week.
ReplyDelete