So, I’m compiling a hopefully comprehensive list of learning to learn strategies. As part of that, I searched on meta-learning strategies. And, in two of the top listed sites, I found, indeed, articles on meta-cognitive strategies. And, a myth. More specifically, one that continues to bedevil our industry (and, relatedly, education). I mean, we’re a quarter way into the new century! I sadly feel like KMN (Kill Me Now).
So, the first site had an article that asked “What meta-learning techniques improve skill acquisition?” After first saying why and what, both good things, the very first recommendation is “understand and adapt to your learning style”. What? I mean, this is such a debunked theme that it’s almost ludicrous. I did comment, but yikes.
So, then going through my other tabs opened from the search results (a meta-learning strategy, btw ;), I find another list. This site has an article listing Examples of Metacognitive Strategies. And, it was only item 5 that was “awareness of learning styles”. Still, here’s a myth pretending to be a valid strategy. Here I couldn’t comment, but I did send a politely worded recommendation to pay attention to the research. (And got a response saying they’d moved on from that position. Ok, but then why did I find it when I did the search?)
In both cases, pointing to an approach that has been deeply investigated and resoundingly dismissed undermines anything and everything else they have to say. Why should I trust what you tell me when I know part of it is wrong? There was other good, and bad, advice in the articles, but sorry, you’ve lost my ability to think you know what you’re talking about.
Yes, I get that the idea of learning styles feels right. Anyone who’s taught recognizes that people learn differently. But…what people think is good, and what actually works, has essentially zero correlation. Yes, you should have different representations. This is to increase access, not to address learning styles, however. And deliberately designing for styles is clearly a waste of money. For instance, creating three different versions of the content for say, visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learners, wouldn’t be justified.
A step back provides this lesson: know what you say before you say it, and don’t say wrong things unless you want to lose credibility. Which is kind of a meta-comment, but that’s a separate issue ;). I don’t really want you to KMN, but…sometimes it feels like we are moving backwards. Can we return to using what’s demonstrably known as a basis? Sure, science gets upgrades, and so sometimes is wrong (flat earth, anyone?) when it moves to a better explanation, but it’s still better than a basis of dogma.
How could you know what your learning style is? How could you confirm it?
Learning style preference is knowable but might not be efficient. I’ve tried different ways of learning french and now im much more open to trying other people’s methods in case im missing something.
The trouble is when I first tried to learn french i would have had no patience for a teacher who claimed to have the best method. Quite a few people claim that. After years of trying I can allow a teacher more time because im more aware of how hard it is to learn languages. Also i know it takes effort on my part to help the teacher or text book writer to help me use their method.
So although i am aware that I have learning preferences that may not be good for me i would go along with a teacher who said they knew what was good for me not because he knew the only way i could learn but because without cooperation and collaboration I know nothing will work.
Philip, yes, people have preferences. And, no, they don’t correlate with success. Further, there are instruments that claim to measure them, but essentially all of them don’t pass standard psychometric validity tests. Even for personality, really only the ‘Big 5’ (OCEAN/HEXACO) is legit, and those are flawed too. To be fair, language learning is still challenging. It also depends; what are your goals? Speaking, reading, writing, ? Immersion appears to be best. Had a Japanese teacher who thought you learned best by learning how kids learn: chants, movement, etc. We did manage to navigate Japan…later advanced Japanese in a classroom didn’t stick. And, yes, your participation (e.g. your motivation or ‘conative intent’) matter for success.
I would suggest that as with all myths, it does start with a kernel of truth. One study noted that there are more than 80 different versions of the original which was too early on to connect to the use of learning technologies.
So, I suggest that rather than fight the myth, assist people to recognize themselves as learners (i.e., metacognition and developing learner agency) apply it to what you need to learn — what is the purpose? What do you need to do? Is it a skill? Is it knowledge only? Do you have some challenges with your executive function? If you are dyslexic with challenges reading, for example, audio may help you. It does go beyond preferences. Correlate the outcomes to a combination of technology and its features to meet your performance needs.
Hi Clark! I’ve always found the following resource helpful as well, for listing metacognitive strategies etc.: see Appendix A from Greene & Azevedo (2009).
Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2009). A macro-level analysis of SRL processes and their relations to the acquisition of a sophisticated mental model of a complex system. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.05.006
Their research group & collaborators have a wealth of helpful information both before and since, but that’s usually the first reference that comes to my mind when I’m thinking about theoretically grounding metacognitive strategies.
Thanks, will review! Always love when people point me to new and valuable resources.
Trudy, I think that’s the core, empower people. Help them know what learning is, how it happens, and how to facilitate it. Then let them be smart enough to adapt.