Garry Platt is in a reflective mood as he looks at the recent debates on TrainingZone.co.uk on learning styles and NLP, and asks: 'Are we throwing the baby out with the bath water?'
There's been an awful lot of debunking, demystifying and discrediting going on around here lately. I know the feeling only too well of sending a broad side into the bows of some dreadful research or badly thought out concept. I've done it enough myself to be a practised expert in this field. Though I do wonder sometimes about the motivation and the true intentions of myself and other people.
I experience nothing wrong in trying to advance and develop training by illustrating or revealing where ideas or long-held beliefs are in fact of dubious credibility. But, the 'map is not the territory' and some people are viewing some conceptual models as an absolute descriptor when in fact they may be acting as useful and productive metaphors or analogies. Granted there are some models that don't even achieve this with any effectiveness, but others do.
"Learning styles, the VAK variety and the Kolb/Honey and Mumford versions have recently come in for a good old-fashioned kicking."Learning styles the VAK variety and the Kolb/Honey and Mumford versions have recently come in for a good old-fashioned kicking. There's also been a 'discussion' about NLP which must have sent the TrainingZone.co.uk servers into meltdown. Some people have criticised an oft quoted theory of memory retention and the correlation to the means of introduction, i.e. reading, seeing, hearing, etc. These and other critiques can sometimes expose poor or genuinely flawed thinking. The baby nevertheless might be being thrown out with the bath water in some cases.
A critical analysis of ideas, theories and concepts is healthy and appropriate; it should be based on a clear understanding of the issues and also an awareness of how these methodologies are applied. This is sometimes not the case. Learning styles for instance have been discussed at length both here and elsewhere and the fact that they are not based on any significant research. The question however should not necessarily be 'is the process based on research' but 'does it enhance the learning process'?
Anyone watching Phil Beadle on Channel 4's 'Can't Read, Can't Write' cannot have failed to recognise a 40+ year old woman who was illiterate suddenly (quite literally) begin to learn to read and write apparently because she was kinaesthetically being allowed to touch the letters and the words they made. Thankfully Phil Beadle hadn't read Clive Shepherd or Karyn Romeis telling us at length what a nonsense learning styles are otherwise he may not have tried this approach. These models might be flawed representations of an incredibly complex and multifaceted process. Despite this, by ensuring that a lesson plan design manifests some of these simplistic concepts it does contribute to improving learning.
At the very least, in my experience, that is the outcome for many learners despite the absence of supporting research. And does the absence of supporting research mean it is not effective? No. Do the opinions of the researchers invalidate the experience of the learners? No. In absence of the critics proving a negative impact or proposing a productive and useful alternative should we simply stop using it? No. Of course we should be explaining that these ideas are a reductionist view of a compound process that is still being explored and defined. At the same time we should apply a measure of common sense and use these models where they can help create engaging learning environments.
No one I think would suggest that I ditch my A to Z of Birmingham because the real thing is nothing like the black and white line illustrations in my A5 booklet. We all understand that it is a grossly limited and two dimensional depiction, nevertheless it is still helpful.
There are some people whose reputation seems to rest on their iconoclast status, and the minute you see their name you just know it is going to be negative, carping and generally non-productive. I find it a very, very difficult line to tread between being focused on verifiable science and data and also being relaxed and accepting of something that despite having no scientific foundation appears to make a positive contribution. Before I vent my spleen on the next big issue I am going to reflect on Theodore Roosevelt's words:
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."
Garry Platt is a training adviser at Oakham EEF, specialising in management development and trainer training. He can be contacted on 01572 723711 or by email
To read more articles from Garry click on the following titles:
Coming soon to an organisation near you: Super fad!
To the trainer of the year 2009
