In my last essay, I stated that the question is not whether “learning styles” exist; the question is: Why do so many educated people hold fast to the belief that they do exist? B. F. Skinner’s work with pigeons some 75 years ago may help us understand.
As a grad student, one of Skinner’s tasks was to feed the pigeons in the animal laboratory. This required him to visit the lab every few hours. After a few weekends of being tied up, he designed a machine to automatically dispense food pellets at regular intervals.
Arriving early on Monday morning, the young Skinner was astonished by the behavior of some of the (well-fed) pigeons. One was constantly turning in circles. Another was continually bowing.
He explained it (in his 1938 Behavior of Organisms) as follows: The one pigeon just happened to be turning when a food pellet fell. The other just happened to be pecking (bowing) when another food pellet fell.
One major lesson from Dr. Skinner is that behavior has consequences. The behavior of these lab pigeons was by chance: But that chance turning or bowing was followed immediately by a huge food reinforcement. And they persisted in this behavior.
Skinner termed this type of learning Accidental Conditioning, and said it was the basis of superstitious behavior. Not just in pigeons.
We see the same accidental learning in baseball players, with batters performing ritualistic behaviors, touching themselves here and there: That is what they happened to be doing just before that huge reinforcement when they hit the ball. Or a student might bring a “lucky” pencil to an exam—the one they used before receiving a good mark.
Now imagine you are a college professor, or counselor, at Rio Hondo College.
Imagine further, that you employ a particular “learning style” with your student, or counselee.
Imagine further again that the outcome just happens to be very favorable.
That favorable outcome reinforces the behavior that preceded it (using the “learning style” approach).
Pigeons and people: Superstitious behavior can be instilled the same way, by chance connection between behavior and outcomes.
Skinner’s hope was that by learning the principles of operant behavior, we could apply them to improve the human condition.
We humans can learn them; pigeons cannot.
I covered this in Econ 106 when talking of Magical Thinking by market participants. Students in the baseball team had a hard time accepting some of the rituals they perform before going up to bath is not effect their performance at bat.
ReplyDeleteI meant to type bat not Bath! This is what happens when you have auto correct on your mobile device running.
ReplyDeleteI see Javaman's point, but your essay suggests that there is no basis to the notion that some people are prone to process information in different ways. I don't think your essay makes the point well at all and there is copious research that supports the idea.
ReplyDeleteRobOk: What research are you talking about? Most learning styles "research" is highly flawed. Conclusions are pretty strong against the existence of learning styles. I refer you to Paschler et al. (2009) for a nice literature review.
ReplyDeleteKSmith: Thanks for your note. I am not a psychologist and I have read Pashler, et. al.'s article. I guess I'm thinking more of multiple intelligence rather than learning style, which I'm actually dubious about. Really what I was thinking is that the essay seemed less than convincing in its position than accurate in its sentiment.
ReplyDelete