This is the first of a planned two posts that I've been mulling over and sporadically writing notes to myself about over the last year or so. This first post is a very brief overview of some important concepts and well established results of psychology that help me think about my thinking. The second post is about valuing scientific expertise and why our non-expert default position should be to believe scientific consensuses, or at the very least, to be comfortable in saying, "I don't know". Both include a lot of links to further reading and learning if you're so inclined.
Why?
Since
the ascendancy of Donald Trump to the White House, and now with the coronavirus pandemic, I've noticed a lot of weird beliefs and thinking take hold
across social media. Common to these groups is the idea that "the
media" and other non-specific all-powerful groups or people (the
"deep state", Bill Gates) are manipulating us with their "fake news",
false narratives and sinister motives; that scientists and so-called "experts" can't be trusted. Unlike me, this new group of free and
critical thinking peoples see the truth; the scales have fallen from their eyes
(not that they are being manipulated by an authoritarian dictator and a disinformation campaign). I, on the other hand, as someone who tends to take experts and journalists who have a proven track record at face value, am one of the “sheeple”.
Arguing
with people who have fallen down the YouTube and Facebook rabbit hole about
their specific beliefs and claims is exhausting and likely to backfire. As such, I
thought I'd take a different tack and discuss how I think about critical
thinking vs non-critical and pseudo-critical thinking, and the importance of
valuing expertise.
If I have sent you a link to this post, it's because I know
I won't convince you about whatever it is we're disagreeing about. I'm not even
going to try. Forget
about whatever it was we were discussing as it’s not specific to what follows. What
I hope to do is to show how I think about any claim, how I try to reflect
on my own thinking (I'm not always successful), and in another post, why I think we should all
value and respect expertise.
Critical thinking vs non-critical
and pseudo-critical thinking
First,
I think it's important to distinguish between the three different modes of
thinking that to some degree we all use to come to a point of view — critical thinking, non-critical thinking (see Kahneman's slow and fast thinking) and pseudo-critical
thinking.
In Parts One and Two I examined the 10 percent brain myth and the educational program 'Brain Gym'. I applied the LMGTFY test and the Plausibility test to these claims (which they respectively failed). In this final post I will look at learning styles.
The term ‘‘learning styles'' refers to the concept that individuals differ in regard to what mode of instruction or study is most effective for them. of learning style typically ask people to evaluate what sort of information presentation they prefer (e.g., words versus pictures versus speech) and/or what kind of mental activity they find most engaging or congenial (e.g., analysis versus listening), although assessment instruments are extremely diverse. The most common—but not the only—hypothesis about the instructional relevance of learning styles is the meshing hypothesis, according to which instruction is best provided in a format that matches the preferences of the learner (e.g., for a ‘‘visual learner,'' emphasizing visual presentation of information). (Pashler, H. et al. 2009 - pdf)
As with Brain Gym, when you google learning styles, it is not immediately dismissed or accepted. Moreover, at first glance its claims seem more than reasonable.
There are many variants of learning styles, for the sake of this examination I'll look at the most popular model, Visual-Auditory-Kinasthetic (VAK).
Visual Learners:
These learners need to see the teacher's body language and facial expression to fully understand the content of a lesson. They tend to prefer sitting at the front of the classroom to avoid visual obstructions (e.g. people's heads). They may think in pictures and learn best from visual displays including: diagrams, illustrated text books, overhead transparencies, videos, flipcharts and hand-outs. During a lecture or classroom discussion, visual learners often prefer to take detailed notes to absorb the information.
Auditory Learners:They learn best through verbal lectures, discussions, talking things through and listening to what others have to say. Auditory learners interpret the underlying meanings of speech through listening to tone of voice, pitch, speed and other nuances. Written information may have little meaning until it is heard. These learners often benefit from reading text aloud and using a tape recorder.
Tactile/Kinesthetic Learners:Tactile/Kinesthetic persons learn best through a hands-on approach, actively exploring the physical world around them. They may find it hard to sit still for long periods and may become distracted by their need for activity and exploration.
I first came across VAK learning styles when I was doing my undergraduate degree in Education. I was immediately skeptical. Perhaps it was because I found I liked to learn with all three styles, and I generalized my own experience to be a universal one.... Or more likely, it relates to that expression, “If it smells like bullsh*t, it probably is bullsh*t”.
The claim was that optimal teaching and learning required diagnoses of my students' learning styles and tailoring my lessons to those individuals accordingly. I had no interest in teaching the same content in three different ways to my three different types of students based on this. When I was teaching, say, Newton's laws of motion, I varied my approaches anyway, to keep the lessons interesting and to give students every opportunity to understand a reasonably difficult concept. There were notes on the whiteboard, diagrams that I'd explain, they would conduct experiments, practice questions etc. I.e., all the students would learn about Newton's laws using all three learning styles. The mode of instruction depended on the content.
This is not to say differentiation for individual students isn't appropriate. It's the method by which we 'diagnose' who is having difficulty and why, that is important. I would diagnose which students were having difficulty and differentiate accordingly. I would do this by observation, collecting work, asking questions etc. I'd also take into account any medically diagnosed learning difficulties and act on them as appropriate.
That being said, so long as one doesn't make the claim that visual learners, for example, can only learn visually, at first glance, these claims seem plausible. People, when asked, do have preferred ways of learning. Moreover, people may be better at retaining visual, auditory or kinesthetic information. E.g. some people are natural musicians, or 3-D designers, or better at tennis.
This is the reason I think VAK seems plausible. We can all relate to being better at one style of of these or another. However, being more natural at one of the VAKs, is not the same as learning any kind of information through one of the VAKs. Conflating these two ideas is where proponents have gone wrong.
Be that as it may, let's take it as a given that the claims of VAK proponents are plausible. We now need to apply the Empirical Evidence test.
In 2009, Psychological Science in the Public Interest published an analysis of learning styles practices, evaluating their claims and reviewing the academic literature. From their summary:
A credible validation of learning-styles-based instruction requires a very particular type of experimental finding:
Students must be divided into groups on the basis of their learning styles.
Students from each group must be randomly assigned to receive one of multiple instructional methods.
Students must sit for a final test that is the same for all.
I.e. we need to see the results of a randomised controlled trial. If learning something in one's preferred learning style leads to improved learning, we should see that in the results. A valid learning styles hypothesis would mean students who learn with their preferred learning style should, on average, out perform students who do not.
Their literature review found that:
Children and adults will, if asked, express preferences about how they prefer information to be presented to them.
People differ in the degree to which they have some fairly specific aptitudes for different kinds of thinking and for processing different types of information.
This is pretty non-controversial. People have preferred ways of doing things. However, the literature review also found virtually no evidence for the interaction pattern mentioned above, which was judged to be a precondition for validating the educational applications of learning styles:
Although the literature on learning styles is enormous, very few studies have even used an experimental methodology capable of testing the validity of learning styles applied to education. Moreover, of those that did use an appropriate method, several found results that flatly contradict the popular meshing hypothesis.
We conclude therefore, that at present, there is no adequate evidence base to justify incorporating learning-styles assessments into general educational practice. Thus, limited education resources would better be devoted to adopting other educational practices that have a strong evidence base, of which there are an increasing number. However, given the lack of methodologically sound studies of learning styles, it would be an error to conclude that all possible versions of learning styles have been tested and found wanting; many have simply not been tested at all.
In Part One I outlined the three broad tests I apply for examining a claim:
1. LMGTFY (let me google that for you)
2. The Plausibility Test (is it really even plausible?)
3. Empirical evidence (Okay, google wasn't definitive, and it sounds plausible, so what does the evidence say?)
I applied these to the 'we only use 10 percent or our brain' myth, which immediately failed the 'lmgtfy' test. This post will examine the claims made in a reasonably popular education program called 'Brain Gym'.
When you google Brian Gym, you do not get a black and white answer as to its efficacy. You get some official websites and a wikipedia entry. Brain Gym passes the lmgtfy test, so we move on to consider its plausibility.
The Brain Gym program is based on the concept that learning challenges can be overcome by carrying out certain movements, the use of which will create pathways in the brain. The repetition of the 26 Brain Gym activities (each of which takes about a minute to do), is said to "activate the brain for optimal storage and retrieval of information."
Already my skeptical hairs are beginning to stand on end. But, it's still not clear cut. Doing some form of physical activity always wakes me up and makes me feel more alert, thus 'optimizing' my brain. Exercise is good for you. No problems with that. However, there clearly is more to it than this.
It's at this point I ask 'what are they saying?' A common problem encountered when attempting to understand the reasoning behind a claim is the wording of the claim itself. A necessary condition for further investigation of Brain Gym is therefore clarity about their explanatory framework. Brain Gym is more than just 'exercise breaks'. They make explicit claims, that particular exercises effect specific regions of the brain and thus prepare students for specific types of learning. Let's consider some examples. If a picture says a thousand words, a video must say three, 'dumb, dumb and dumber'.
Okay, I've seen enough. This is just embarrassing.
Pressing "Brain Buttons" activates the brain for sending messages from the right to the left hemisphere, increases the flow of electromagnetic energy and is good for reading.
"Energy yawns" increase circulation to the brain and increases sensory perception, helping reading aloud and creative writing.
"Hook ups" connect the body's electrical circuits for emotional centering and help students take tests and work at the keyboard.
The claim that a specific exercise relates to improvement in a specific learning area or type of cognition is implausible. It contradicts what we know about how the brain works.
To the credit of Brain Gym, compared to say astrologers, they are specific enough that a blinded trial could easily be conducted to confirm or falsify their claims. To their discredit, as they state on the Brain Gym website, they only have anecdotal evidence and observational studies, which by definition are inherently flawed.
This post is not a critique of Brain Gym per se. This is about applying some basic skeptical principles when initially examining any claim. With a claim, such as those made with Brain Gym, we can see it immediately contradicts well established facts about how the brain works. It is, to use a technical term, pseudoscientific bullsh!t. At this point we do not need to keep on investigating Brain Gym. It is implausible; there is no need to look for any evidence of its efficacy. We can dismiss the claims of Brain Gym without much of a fuss.
In order to change my mind about Brain Gym, the known facts would need to change, or, I would need to be provided with some extraordinary evidence of its efficacy. This evidence absolutely must be more than anecdote and observational studies.
Just in case you still weren't sure that Brain Gym was a bunch of made up crap, I'll enlist the aid of Jeremy Paxman who induces this third party facepalm from Brain Gym's creator Paul Dennison "PhD". He's from California...
Occasionally you'll hear people discuss the nervous system and the brain, using the idea of circuits. Hell, I often refer to myself as a meat robot. But clearly when doing this we are speaking metaphorically. Dennison is being literal.
When describing a difficult scientific concept to lay people, it's perfectly acceptable to use analogy. However, it's unacceptable to not also describe what is actually going on. The analogy should be used for illustration only. This is even more important when being directly challenged about an explanation for a claim, as Dennison was in the clip above.
Note he also brings in the usual non-specific and meaningless term 'energy', 'midpoints' etc., all throwbacks to 'vital force' / 'life force' used by people ignorant of biology. That is, his educational pseudoscience is an extension of medical pseudoscience.
Why am I picking on Brain Gym ? Isn't it just harmless exercise? If that's all it was, that would be fine. But, it's a commercial program that schools waste good money on. More importantly, its explanatory framework is pseudoscientific bullsh*t. The job of a teacher is to tell children about how the real world works. To teach children how to think critically. Ironically, the harm being done to children's brains by this almost certainly outweighs any good the exercise does.
The clips above are from BBC's Newsnight and were sourced via Bad Science. There you will find links to the complete and unedited Newsnight clips on YouTube. For further critiques of Brain Gym see:
