I was co-facilitating a workshop not long ago when an experiencedclassroom trainer came to run a session on facilitation skills. Last time shebrought up “learning styles.” This time she came in with a “Dale’sCone” handout. Even thoughshe’s plenty smart and a wonderful facilitator, she was propagating ideas thathave been discounted and debunked and even ridiculed, sometimes for years.
We Know Now What We Didn’tKnow Then
I know a lot of people in this business who once believed inteaching to learning styles. Heck, I was one of them. Thanks largely topropagation by instrument-and-workshop peddlers partnering with schools eagerto promise parents “individualized instruction,” the idea, though misguided,has fallen into the realm of common knowledge. (See the Reference at the end ofthis article.) But we know better now, as I outlined in the July Guild ResearchTheTruth About Teaching to Learning Styles, and What to Do Instead. But,you know, we evolved. We’re still bringing some others along—the ideas stillrun rampant in places like second grade classrooms and HR—but most of us knowbetter now, and have adjusted our practice accordingly.
Stop andThink
It’s easy to pass along an appealing, seemingly intuitive idea without giving it much thought. Dale’s Cone is a great example. You see it forthe first time and say, “Well, of course people would remember what they do more than what they just hear!” And that’s pretty much where it began: In writing about incorporatingaudio-visual materials Edgar Dale, back in the 1960s, offered a “cone” diagram.It had no numbers associated with it and Dale himself warned that it shouldn’tbe taken too literally. What happened next: Others took the simple idea andslapped numbers on it—numbers that can’t possibly be legitimate. There is no evidence that people remembersome particular percentage of anything, and it should be clear by theconvenient numbers that something is off. But the model—bastardized, hacked,over-designed, and taken far too literally—has been appropriated by designersand others who use it to construct learning experiences or justify decisionsabout them. In turn learners are subjected to an inferior, possibly harmful,experience. What was especiallydisturbing about my colleague with the Dale’s Cone handout is that she has anadvanced degree in training and development with the accompanying training inreading research: How did she miss the obvious problem with anyone claimingthat people “retain 20%” of anything?
Read Up
Staying current is vital, and it seems many may not realizethat, as with any other profession, what we know about learning and skilldevelopment isn’t fixed. While the idea of teaching to “learning style” emergedin the 1940s, it was experimentation in the 1990s and early 2000s that showedthe stunning lack of evidence for the practice. Keep up with professionalreading, and remember what Coveytold us about Important/Not Urgent tasks: Professional reading is the kind of thing that is vital, but easy not todo. Make time, make it a habit, and schedule it if you need to. Don’t know where to begin: Well, you’re here.The eLearning Guild offers near-daily updates to Learning Solutions.
Find YourTribe
Or more specifically, find a credible tribe. One of theproblems with communities is that theycan become too insular, falling into too much confirmation bias andpromoting bad practice. Find people who are workingto stay current, who do a good deal of nonfiction reading, and whowill play devil’s advocate from time to time. Find groups that include somepeople who aren’t selling anything. You may find this physically in some localgathering or online conversation like Twitter’s #lrnchat, or a LinkedIn,Facebook, or similar group. If nothingelse, finding a good community will help you stay energized and active aboutyour practice.
Be willing to evolve your practice.
Reference
Riener & Willingham, 2010. “TheMyth of Learning Styles.” 32 – 35.
