Jonathan Beckett, 2011.

Abstract

This paper develops a systematic approach to synthesising a range of theories in relation to teaching and learning. Moreover, I discuss how the use of learning styles is a pertinent feature within my pedagogical practice. Within this work I discuss Piaget, Bruner, Vygotsky and Maslow as examples of theorists whose ideas impact upon my teaching in Key Stage Two. Against this background I specifically outline how their ideas and philosophies are used in my practice. I question the notion of epistemology and suggest that the paradigm a teacher adopts impacts upon their practice as does their understanding of knowledge.

Additionally, I critically discuss how educational policy has impacted upon my pedagogy whilst questioning the validity of some of these approaches. The changing of the National Curriculum and the agenda for multiple intelligences, learning styles and creativity is mentioned as is the use of visual, auditory and kinaesthetic schemas of learning. Each of these are critically assessed and reviewed.

1

To what extent is teaching shaped by an understanding of pedagogical theory? A critical discussion of how theories of teaching and learning are embedded into professional practice.

Introduction

This paper critically analyses educational policy in the light of pedagogical theory,

demonstrating a substantial awareness of theories of teaching and learning as they

relate to my work as a Primary practitioner. Furthermore, the paper explores the

notion of epistemology and work towards defining this term. It will then outline the

implications of epistemology for pedagogical theory, educational practice and

professional development.

Additionally I will critically address Piaget’s notion of developmental thinking as well

as assessing the validity of claims which relate to ways of learning. I shall also

examine Maslow as a humanist who sought to highlight the ability of individuals to

learn. This is pertinent to my work as their sentiments highlight ways in which pupils

may achieve their potential. Further to this I will discuss Vygotsky’s notion of the

need to scaffold pupil’s work in order to allow them to work within their Zone of

Proximal Development. In addition to this I critique Bruner’s theory as he discusses

‘the spiral curriculum’, planning and implementing an exciting curriculum based upon

important values and topics.

This work will also explore the notion of learning styles and multiple intelligences,

within their relationship to government educational policies and classroom practice.

2

Moreover, in so doing I shall take an original perspective on the issues and

systematically evaluate and critique an extensive range of relevant sources.

A critical reflection upon knowledge, with reflective awareness, of theories of teaching, and how these relate to theories of learning

Epistemology may be defined as the study of knowledge, such as how a person

‘grounds’ their ideas and beliefs. However, a person has to be aware that when

using metaphors like, ‘grounding,’ this assumes a base or foundation. From my

professional stance my view of education is based upon understanding the children,

caring for them and considering how they may understand the lessons I teach.

However, the question of what knowledge is and how this may be imparted is upon

contestable ground. Epistemology is, according to Coolican (2009), the philosophy

of knowledge of the world and how it is formed and attained. Burton and Bartlett

(2009) state that epistemology is concerned with the creation of knowledge and what

may be deemed as ‘legitimate knowledge’ (p.17). This quote contains three

elements: First the definition of epistemology, the learning of so called ‘facts;’

second, the origin and formation of knowledge and thirdly the way in which a person

may define actual or credible knowledge.

A further description of epistemology is offered by Dawson (2009), who is of the view

that epistemology relates to the study of the characteristics of knowledge. This

definition includes looking at the source of what may be termed ‘knowledge’ as well

as analysing the reasons for the justification of what may be claimed to be ‘facts.’

3

Within the classroom context I seek to challenge pupil’s concepts of knowledge. For

example, during junior philosophy sessions and Religious Education (RE) lessons I

pose questions and seek to help pupils to think critically. One approach I adopt is

the Socratic Method, in which the teacher is not the fount of knowledge but through

interactions pupils and teachers are able to question and challenge their beliefs.

Reich (2003:2) states: ‘Through questioning, the participants strive first to identify

and then to defend their moral intuitions about the world which undergird their ways

of life.’

This approach presents as thoughtful learning, in which the students are empowered

and required to think. Opportunities for investigative work and problem solving are

examples of occasions in which pupils can develop their thinking skills and enhance

their cognitive development. Wallace (2006:14) argues:

Every teacher has a personal repertoire of tried and tested classroom skills and strategies that are used appropriately for differing needs and purposes. Working in a problem-solving and thinking-skills way doesn't mean that we should never teach from the front, organise purposeful learning by rote, teach specific subject skills, give opportunities for necessary practice, show by demonstration or set individual work. However, teaching problem-solving and thinking skills within subjects and across the curriculum in a planned and coherent way actively develops learners' skills of 'learning how to learn', and actively increases their mental capacities.

The problem solving approach allows an individual to explore the various options

and seek to find a solution. It also relates to the formation of self-esteem, self-

advocacy and belief (Goodley 2011). The epistemology of self as located on a

trajectory and / or in an arena means that all knowledge is situated.

4

Maslow is an example of a humanistic psychologist who sees the ability of a person

to learn and acquire knowledge as a layered process. These layers lead to what he

termed ‘self- actualisation,’ being what you are able to be, achieving the goals and

your ultimate ambitions. King (2010) explains the pyramid of humanistic thinking:

firstly, physical needs should be met, such as having access to food and drink. Next,

warmth and safety are important in this schema as a way of promoting security.

Third, love and relationships create a sense of belonging, which according to Maslow

is important in the development of a human. Fourthly, self- esteem stems from

gaining a sense of achievement in successes, promoting confidence and

independence. Finally, when all these points are addressed, Maslow believed an

individual could self- actualise, in which their talents and individual abilities could

flourish. From a practical point of view within the classroom a child I taught six years

ago, Adam (pseudonym) had difficulty in accessing the curriculum. Some of these

problems appeared to stem from issues at home. These involved feeling as though

he was not accepted, often appearing in dirty uniform and he was a challenging

pupil, in terms of behaviour management. Adam often came to school in a frame of

mind that was not conducive to effective learning and subsequently found reading

and writing difficult. As a result of this he performed poorly and sought to mask

these problems be behaving inappropriately. However, on some occasions in which

he came to school in a more stable frame of mind he was able to achieve small step

targets, which I sought to give him in order to enhance his confidence and self-

esteem. I would critique Maslow’s theory and suggest that although beneficial in

Adam’s case, is it a universal theory? Brown (2002) suggests that the theory is

based upon tentative grounds and although useful as an overview of human

capability to access and achieve success, it should not be taken as the litmus test for

5

the generalisability of vast samples of the population. Furthermore, it may be asked:

has Maslow made considerations to epistemology and its relationship to pedagogical

practice?

I shall now offer a critical synthesis upon the work of Jean Piaget. Piaget used the

term ‘genetic epistemology’ as contrasted to John Watson’s paradigm of

behaviourism. Piaget was a Swiss psychologist born in 1896 who has made a

significant contribution to investigating the development of children’s minds and

behaviour. By contrast John Watson, a behaviourist sought to focus upon external

actions rather than the internal working of the mind. Watson suggested that

behaviour was learned and re- enforced by experiences (Lons 1977). This

behaviourist theory is based upon a ‘stimulus response’, noting that responses were

based upon receiving positive and negative experiences; this paradigm was

advocated by Thorndike (1962). Within the classroom, positive reinforcement of

desirable actions can lead to positive ‘learned behaviour’ (Kyriacou 2009). Dean

(2009) suggests that behaviourism can be used to make pedagogical decisions and

enhance teaching and learning opportunities. Ward and Eden (2010) suggest that

individuals enter the learning environment with ideas and standards. Ward and

Eden (2010:128) argue: ‘Schools can either counter such stereotypes or reinforce

them.’ However, as a critique of behaviourism I would postulate that this theory

based upon the foundations of ‘classic conditioning’ lacks scientific scrutiny, such as

looking into how long Pavlov’s dogs were kept waiting for food before the bell was

rung indicating a meal was on its way. Any animal or human when subjected to such

conditioning may react in a similar way and this cannot be used as a concrete

theory.

6

The ‘law of effect’ as highlighted by Thorndike (ibid), whereby a piece of fish was left

outside a cat’s cage, the cat learned to scratch and lift the bars to reach it and was

able to repeat this on other occasions. However, this is not proof of human

conditioning. Piaget on the other hand argued that the development of human

thought and subsequently behaviour was based upon stages of specific thinking and

subsequent capabilities. For the purpose and scope of this paper I shall explore

Piaget’s thinking. The rationale for selecting Piaget’s developmental theory is that if

this is used as a schema for teaching there are implications of how materials may be

taught. For example, if a child is unable to think in an abstract way and is operating

at a ‘concrete’ understanding of concepts teaching investigative skills and Maths

problem solving activities would be beyond the capability of a child who had not

developed these skills.

This theory of knowledge seeks to formalise the way in which a person behaves and

highlights the stages of human development. This begins with Sensori-motor (from

birth to 2 years) and continues with Pre-operational  (2-7 years), Concrete

operational  (7-11 years) and further continues with Formal operational  (11 years

and above). Piaget’s theory explains that children learn about the world through the

use of their senses. Children explore their environment egocentrically and are often

unaware of other people’s point of view. Young children and babies develop actions

such as sucking, rattling and moving objects. Between 2 and 7 children according to

Piaget begin to develop a sense of greater thinking as well as the acquisition of

motor skills. At this stage the theory suggests that children are unable to think

7

logically. At the concrete operational stage Piaget argues that an individual can

begin to think logically but within a concrete framework. Piaget suggests that

children can use objects to help them in the process of logical thinking. At this stage

children are not so egocentric. The fourth stage is the formal operational stage from

11 to 16 years old; this is the development of abstract reasoning and the ability to

make logical decisions.

By way of critique I seek to explain that these stages infer a genetic disposition

towards meeting these milestones. Moreover, these stages have not been

empirically ratified and suggest that an individual is incapable of certain ways of

thinking and learning until a certain age. For example, behaviouralism claims to use

scientific procedures to study behaviour in relation to the environment (Humphreys

1985). This is more observable than analysing the functioning’s of the brain’s

activity. Additionally, Piaget’s work is based upon a small sample of individuals

without substantial quantitative controls and lacks scientific rigor in statistical

analysis (Vuyk 1981). Although some generalisability may be applied, Piaget’s

theory does not appear to allow for deviations from the stages. For example, what if

a child had dyslexia and found abstract thinking difficult? They may not access this

stage at the ages Piaget gives; furthermore they may not access this until

significantly later on in their life. Norwich et al. (2010:51) state: ‘The Select

Committee Report started by acknowledging the scale of special educational needs-

about 1.5 million pupils so identified.’ In the light of Piaget’s theory, where do these

1.5 million children fit in? Berger (2007) suggests that some individuals may never

reach the formal operational stage, highlighting that it is an insufficient picture of

cognitive development.

8

Shayer (1978) in ‘A test of the validity of Piaget's construct of formal operational

thinking’ argues that individuals may not reach this stage in the time Piaget gives.

Moreover, the controls in the research Piaget did appear, according to Shayer (ibid)

lapse. In addition to these sentiments, Piaget’s paradigm specifically focuses upon

mathematical and scientific development and does not specifically account for those

individuals that may not be academically able in these subjects. From my own

teaching some pupils thrive in these subjects, whereas others do well at creative

subjects and Humanities. Piaget’s theory offers little scope for identifying successes

beyond mathematical and scientific thinking. Within whole school celebration

assemblies and my class reward time I seek to praise pupils for all aspects of school

life, if I were using Piaget’s theory in isolation this would leave many of my current

class without the recognition they deserve of the successes they have achieved.

As well as differences within pupil’s strengths, there is also arguably a difference

between boys’ and girls’ development. Biddulph (2008) argues that the brain of boys

and girls during early childhood operates and develops in different ways. This, he

suggests impacts upon their school work. Within this critical synthesis of Piaget’s

work Piaget makes no distinction between boys and girls and appears to leave little

room for pupils who do not naturally progress through the stages. I postulate that

Piaget’s theory does not give sufficient flexibility within its narrow scope for individual

progress. Thus, it would be unrealistic within the classroom to apply Piaget’s

thinking to each child as every person develops their skills and ability to ascertain

‘knowledge’ at different rates. This theory is useful to the extent that it identifies

9

some of the possible routes of thinking; however it is not the panacea and should not

be used as a blueprint or a strait jacket.

A further psychologist who I often refer to in my work is Lev Vygotsky, who was born

in the same year as Piaget, 1896. His work primarily focuses upon a person’s Zone

of Proximal Development (ZPD). Joyce et al. (2011:13) state: ‘According to

Vygotsky the region in which the transfer of ability from the shared to the individual

occurs is called the ‘‘zone of proximal development’’, or the ZPD.’ Vygotsky argues

that a practitioner should encourage a pupil to the extent to which the work is a

challenge, thus within their ZPD or capability. However, if the work is wrongly

pitched the child may become bored or unable to complete the task as it is too

difficult. Within my classroom I seek to ‘scaffold’ the learning and to differentiate for

most lessons between the must, should and could children. These are targets set

which encourage the children to succeed but are not beyond their capabilities. This

scaffold provides a support structure for pupils to achieve their potential within a

given session. However, from my own experience I have pitched the work for the

class and individuals too highly or too simplistically and this has hampered learning.

Thus, this theory impacts upon pedagogical practice as I seek to create the

appropriate scaffolds to optimize learning. Vygotsky believed that a child would

benefit from the ZPD through social interactions and using adult supervision and

help where required (Portas and Salas 2011). Veer (2007) explains that language

has a particular role in Vygotsky’s theory, meaning language can be used to help

solve problems and if used effectively can be beneficial in enhancing a person’s

ability to perform within the ZPD. Pupils who are working within this zone can also,

according to this theory, help other children. This within my own practice has been

10

the case. An example to cite is when teaching Rachel (pseudonym) last week.

Rachel has dyscalculia and finds Numeracy difficult, whereas Katie (pseudonym) a

more able child has a grasp of the concepts and was working on a challenging task,

within her ZPD. Katie saw Rachel was struggling and was aware I was busy working

with a focus / target group, helped Rachel with the task and later informed me of this.

Katie was able to use her grasp of the topic and able to explain it to Rachel, who

subsequently understood the task.

A further example of the use of theorists within my practice is that of Jerome Bruner,

who uses the term ‘the spiral curriculum’ as a way of describing a constructivist

approach to learning. This theory is based upon the study of cognition (Bruner

1966). This curriculum should, in Bruner’s idea, revisit basic ideas and underlying

principles, building upon them until the child has mastered these points. This

formation of a curriculum was according to Bruner to be based upon ideal values and

important principles. A critique of this is the subjective nature of what is valued by

one individual may not be by another. An example of this is the recent review of the

curriculum by the coalition government deciding upon whether languages should be

taught in Key Stages one and two and what subjects should be contained within the

English Baccalaureate.

I endeavor to apply Bruner’s notion of the spiral curriculum in my planning. In

February the school I work in became an academy. This allowed more flexibility with

what was taught and the way in which it was delivered. Furthermore it has enabled

me to focus upon restructuring a curriculum for my class and make contributions

11

towards a whole school approach, with specific emphasis in enhancing the teaching

and learning in Key Stage Two. This involved pupil consultations, finding out about

their interests and seeking to create an exciting and innovative curriculum. This lead

to empowerment in being more flexible and free in what was taught and the time

taken to do so. It also meant that I could spend longer on teaching certain areas that

the pupils found difficult or specifically interesting. For example, some children found

learning division difficult, therefore as a teacher I spend longer than the National

Numeracy Strategy suggested. Additionally, the class were specifically interested in

doing a project about the dinosaurs. Therefore, I designed a scheme of work which

could allow a spiral effect of activity. A critique offered by some educators is that

exploratory based learning may not lead to enhanced cognition (Olson 2007).

Additionally, exploratory type sessions are impractical within the constraints of the

National Curriculum. Bruner was writing at a time in which the curriculum had not

been formed and if he had been this theory may be different. On the other hand, the

government is currently reviewing the curriculum and seeking to allow creativity and

this could lead to a greater exploratory approach.

A critical synthesis of educational policy and approaches to practice in the light of pedagogical theory.

Within Key Stage two the school I previously worked in encouraged the ascertaining

of learning styles in its relation to educational policy and pedagogical theory. Bates

et al. (2011:42) states: ‘Policy making is not a static process but it is often the result

of a dynamic interplay between politics and personalities of those involved in the

process.’ The process of policy making includes assessing a potential issue,

12

seeking to implement provision and evaluating it. The learning styles schema can be

traced back to the work of Honey and Mumford in the 1980s. In which they sought to

describe people’s learning preferences into distinctive categories depending upon

their approach to various activities. They postulated that people would either be an

activist, a pragmatist, a theorist or reflector. An activist according to this theory

would enjoy challenges and seek opportunities to problem solve and deliberate with

others. A pragmatist enjoys feedback from a task as well as coaching and seeks to

develop new learning experiences. A theorist adopts a theoretical, step by step

approach to problem solving and enjoys case studies and reading. Finally a reflector

enjoys watching activities which stimulate the mind to reflect upon the experiences

and to form suitable conclusions. From the outset this theory has not been peer

reviewed and Honey and Mumford’s book (1992) was published by Peter Honey

publishing house, thus publishing his own work. Furthermore, the sentiments

suggested in the text are based upon speculation rather than empirical data. Whilst

at my former school teaching staff were actively encouraged to pursue the learning

styles approach. It appeared that I seemed to be the only member of teaching staff

who questioned this notion. However, based upon these next points I wish to

demonstrate why I felt that the notion of learning preferences was unfounded.

Sharp et al. (2008) researched the prevalence of the use of learning styles within

schools. Of the 76 respondents over half of them used visual, auditory and

kinesthetic (VAK) programmes as a whole school policy. A pertinent finding was that

many class teachers were relying upon ‘second hand’ information from senior staff or

governors about the usefulness of VAK. It is important that all staff are given access

to the materials and have an awareness of the learning styles concept and how this

13

relates to pedagogy. Sharp et al. (ibid) additionally found that a significant majority

of the respondents used Gardner’s notion of ‘multiple intelligences’ and Dennison’s

‘brain gym’ movements without understanding their origin or questioning their validity

(Smith 1999, 2003, Dennison 1994, 2006, McNeil 2009, Hoerr 2010, Gardener 1999,

2006). For the purpose and scope of this paper, I shall critically discuss multiple

intelligences as its concepts are interlinked with VAK.

The theory of multiple intelligences was developed by Howard Gardener in 1983 in

which he believed individuals were capable of different intelligences. Prashnig

(2005) describes this theory as a conceptual framework underpinning how

intelligences are understood and assessed. Gardner advocated individuals had

intelligences which were not necessarily identified through conducting IQ tests. This

is different to Piaget in that it considers other intelligences aside from mathematic

and scientific ability. For example a child who has specific learning difficulties

(SpLD) may be especially gifted in the Arts. Gardner (1991:12) argues:

I have posited that all human beings are capable of at least seven different ways of knowing the world -- ways that I have elsewhere labelled the seven human intelligences.

The intelligences Gardner considered include:

Spatial Linguistic Logical-mathematical Bodily-kinesthetic Musical Interpersonal Intrapersonal

14

Gardner believed that through introducing a range of learning methods or

‘intelligences’ a practitioner or parent can develop the person’s strengths. Gardner

(1999) later introduced the possibility of a further three intelligences. These

included: Naturalist intelligence, Existential intelligence and Spiritual intelligence. I

shall now discuss these intelligences.

Gardener understood spatial intelligence as a person who was able to visualise,

such as the skills required by an architect. Linguistic intelligence refers to reading,

writing and speaking skills. These learners can take notes easily, listen to lectures,

write competently and are skilled in crafting sentences. Logical- mathematically

refers to those who are able to reason mathematically, who can solve puzzles,

identify patterns and solve abstract number equations. Gardner understood bodily-

kinaesthetic as those who did well at sport and dance and other physical activities.

These learners in this theory have good motor skills and control over muscular

movement. Musical intelligence refers to those who have a particular flair for

musical appreciation, rhythms, timbre and pitch. They are often skilled in playing

musical instruments. Gardner understood ‘Interpersonal’ as those who were

extroverts, able to lead others and had a natural ability to communicate with people.

Intrapersonal people, according to Gardner are those who have a unique sense of

self, are able to analyse feelings and moods in a psychological way. These may

include philosophers, writers, theologians, lawyers and psychologists. Additionally,

Gardner understood naturalistic ability as those who were able to nurture the

environment, such as understanding animal and plant types / species. These may

include gardeners, farmers and miners. Finally, Existential intelligence and spiritual

15

intelligence referring to transcendial or cosmic matters. Including spiritual leaders,

scientists and astrologers (Gardner 1999).

White (2008: 611) suggests: ‘The theory of multiple intelligences has been influential

in school reform across the world.’ For example Chen et al. (2009) argues that MI

has been used in South America, Turkey, Japan, South Korea and Romania. Chen

et al. (2009: 8) argue that MI has ‘Major educational implications.’ Thus, the use of

MI in this country and in others has had a significant impact in pedagogy and in

policies devised to support this idea. Currie (2003) suggests that from her research

in Brazil the use of MI has an impact upon teaching and learning. She argues that

by analysing the quantitative data she obtained she is able to ascertain which

intelligences were the highest and which were the lowest. The highest being

linguistic and musical and the lowest being mathematical. This arguably impacts

upon teaching and learning as the practitioner can tailor lessons to the needs of the

class, having an awareness of their particular strengths and weaknesses. By

creating an individual profile a pupil can be given access to curriculum provision

based upon their specific needs (Balakrishnan 2009). Within the United Kingdom

teachers are encouraged to understand MI as having a grasp of this helps them to

organise teaching and learning activities conducive to the particular learning styles of

the class (Kornharber 2004, Bellanca 2009). However, Prashnig (2005) sees

leaning styles as a way of assimilating information rather than specific intelligences.

The issue concerning multiple intelligences (MI) is whether this has been subject to

investigation in a similar way to that which I have mentioned in relation to VAK.

Coffield (2004) argues that the notion of finding different learner’s, with various

16

learning styles is impractical and ‘doesn’t work.’ Moreover, Kingston (2004) notes

that government policy leading to individualised learning has caused the idea of

learning styles and MI to be peddled. Frankiln (2006:81) states:

The notion of learning styles, and the multiple intelligence theory from which some of this derives, has come to be one of the dominant themes in the discourse on learning and teaching.

However, despite the increased prevalence of VAK and MI, how much is known

about the research behind it and the impact it may have?

White (ibid) argues that MI is based upon Gardner’s personal notion of intelligences;

he questions why Gardner selected these intelligences at the potential expense of

others. White (ibid) notes that within Gardner’s writings he does not justify the

criteria of selection or the controls used to measure these intelligences. Despite

these matters educational policy has been built upon these ideas and subsequently

educational pedagogy and practice has been affected.

The Labour government encouraged the pursuit of identifying different learner types,

such as VAK and MI. Hastings (2005:23) states:

...the most commonly used system in schools and the one which has been most widely promoted by the Department for Education and Skills is the VAK model of classification, which divides children into visual, auditory or kinesthetic learners; those who like to look, those who like to listen and those who learn best through physical activity, (sometimes called "active learners").

From this educational initiative schools and specifically the classroom teachers are

encouraged to become familiar with pupil’s learning styles. Murphey Sonbucher

17

(2008:3) state: ‘When we talk about learning styles, we are talking about how you get

a job done. The learning styles are related to the five senses and the learning

channels.’ These learning preferences are known as visual, auditory and kinesthetic

(VAK). This theory suggests that learners will use all three of the VAK in assimilating

information. However, one of these styles is often more prevalent that another

(Prashnig 2006). According to this thinking a visual learner enjoys reading and

writing, an auditory learner finds speaking and listening the most effective way to

learn and a kinesthetic learner is able to visualize and enjoys active manipulation

type tasks.

As with Honey and Mumford’s schema I would question the validity of the claims that

each person can be divided into one of three types of learner. Teachers are

encouraged to use to a questionnaire designed to ascertain whether a child is a

visual, auditory or kinesthetic learner. The pupils are then informed about what type

of learner they are. However, this raises salient points, such as who designed the

questionnaire and upon what basis was it designed? Have the questions been

piloted and are they subject to test- retest criteria? Moreover, what are the

confidence intervals of these questionnaires? Henry (2007:19) argues:

Pupils are instead given questionnaires to discover if they prefer to learn through "visual, auditory or kinesthetic" (Vak) teaching. Once identified, the teacher will allow a visual child to learn through looking at cartoons, pictures and fast-moving computer programmers. A "kinesthetic" learner will be allowed to spread their work on the floor, wander round while they are thinking or learn through dance and drama. In some schools, pupils' desks are even labelled to indicate their learning styles…. The rationale for employing Vak learning styles appears to be weak. After more than 30 years of educational research in to learning styles there is no independent evidence that Vak, or indeed any other learning style inventory, has any direct educational benefits.

18

I postulate that VAK has not come under significant direct scrutiny within

some educational institutions and has been accepted without sufficient

evidence. Stanley (2005: 3) states: ‘The use of learning style theory often

appears to be an unquestioned universal panacea for educators.’

Although I am interested in helping the pupils in my class to learn most

effectively I reject the dogmatic notion of VAK.

Howard – Jones (2007:4) notes in relation to the VAK phenomena:

Unfortunately, these programmes have usually been produced without the involvement of neuroscientific expertise, are rarely evaluated in their effectiveness and are often unscientific in their approach.

These sentiments are echoed by Parkinson (2004) who argues the interest

of learning styles is based upon speculation and unscientific reasoning. A

further concern in relation to learning styles is the assumptions that are

made about the learner as well as the experiences they have. Denzine

(2005) argues that the VAK model of learning is based upon unsubstantiated

premises:

· That there are specific individual differences in learning· That a person’s learning style will remain constant throughout their life time· That the learner’s style of learning is the same across tasks/ problems/ situations· That it is possible to effectively measure an individual’s learning style

Despite my reservations in the application of VAK upon pedagogical practice

Sprenger (2008) argues that differentiation can be effective when considering

learning styles. Within my own classroom I find differentiation between abilities a

challenging task. Sprenger (ibid) suggests that pupils may be helped by careful

19

consideration of how materials are presented. For example a visual learner may

especially benefit from diagrams, DVD extracts, models and illustrations. An

auditory learner may find questioning, lecturers, storytelling and so forth a helpful

medium for learning. Finally a kinaesthetic learner may enjoy active participation

such as role play, modelling and designing.

Fogarty and Bellanca (2008) suggest that a curriculum can be based upon knowing

pupils abilities and understanding their strengths and weaknesses in relation to

different intelligences and VAK. By organising curricular materials around the

learners a practitioner can cater for the needs of their class more effectively.

Moreover, Pritchard (2005) suggests that the teacher who considers learning styles

within their classroom helps the children to become more efficient learners. From

professional experience the exploration of this approach has helped me to plan for

different classes and pupils. However, I would not suggest that children can be

divided up into visual, auditory or kinaesthetic learners. Thus, the understanding of

different needs I use, however I am reluctant to accept the theory of VAK due to its

unsubstantiated claims.

As a final word within this section, government initiatives and VAK theories have a

number of pertinent issues, such as the validity of the claims it made. However,

within a class there seem to be different types of learner. This observation I have

made through teaching a number of different classes throughout my teaching career.

Thus, every time a new class is taught I have to adapt the lessons and my approach

to that cohort of children.

20

Conclusion

This paper has explored educational policy in relation to pedagogy embedded within

my own practice. I have sought to discuss the implications of government ideas

concerning learning styles. Within my own teaching I reject the notion of VAK, as a

concept, although I seek to create positive learning experiences for all class

members. I do this through seeking to differentiate the curriculum, provide positive

reinforcement and cater for individual learners, by offering a range of different

activities. Theories such as VAK, which suggest that learners have individual or

specific learning preferences make a number of significant assumptions and over-

generalise the ability to learn. It may be argued that the former government

endorsed this notion upon unsubstantiated grounds and this led to changes in

teaching and learning. The foundation of VAK appears to be speculative, without

empirical research or specific qualitative notions. The current coalition government

has sought to review the curriculum: the question remains will they review

pedagogical issues in relation to knowledge and teaching and learning theories?

Within my practice is the extent to which I use MI is limited; although I accept that all

pupils have different strengths and weaknesses I postulate that Gardner’s theory,

although broader than Piaget does not allow for the exploration of all intelligences.

Furthermore, these intelligences are Gardner’s subjective opinion and are not

grounded in specific research. MI and VAK have been accepted in schools without

substantial research into their origins and benefits. Some researchers (Coffield

2004, Sharp et al. 2008) offer reservations based upon flaws they detect in the

theory and the ‘blind’ use of it by some practitioners.

21

Additionally I have critiqued Piaget’s theory of human development, which is an

example of a theory which has coined the term ‘epistemology’ as it relates to

children’s thinking and development. This theory suggests that individuals go

through four key stages of development. However, this theory appears flawed upon

several points. Such as the lack of empirical evidence used to support the stages of

development as well as the universal applicability of it and the lack of flexibility for

those individuals which would not meet these stages of development. When

Piaget’s theory is contrasted with the behaviourist approaches it may be noted that

there is scope for learning from experiences within the classroom, however, to argue

that this paradigm is solely based upon external factors is underdeveloped. I would

suggest that a holistic view to the theory of behaviourism, whereby both nature and

nurture are considered within the development of learning.

Abraham Maslow, a humanistic theorist suggests that development occurs through

various stages, relating to a nurtured approach, such as having warmth, safety, love

and so forth. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is a pertinent reminder to me that pupils

have specific needs, which are essential in this theory to promote self -actualisation.

Within my practice I ensure that all pupils are cared for and feel safe and are given

the grounding for enhancement of self -esteem and the potential to gain mastery to

self- actualise. Through nurturing members of the class and creating an

environment which provides appropriate differentiation for the children, each learner

can benefit from the lessons taught.

22

Furthermore, I have demonstrated how I use and apply Vygotsky’s theory of the ZPD

in relation to how I teach and present materials to the pupils. It also determines how

I consider my approach to maximising the learning opportunities for the children I

teach. Being aware of the pupil’s abilities helps me to identify how to accelerate the

learning of more able pupils, whilst scaffolding their tasks and seeking to teach the

less able at a level suitably challenging, within the scaffolding framework. I use

Bruner’s paradigm of the ‘spiral curriculum’ to reinforce concepts, whilst seeking to

create an exciting and innovative curriculum for my class. However, by way of

critique, some educators have argued that exploratory learning is impractical.

In summary, having an awareness of educational policy and an understanding of

pedagogical theory my teaching and the subsequent learning has been beneficially

impacted. Through being at the ‘cutting edge’ of government changes and

developments, classroom practice can be informed through the application of the

salient points relating to pedagogical theory. However, the practitioner should seek

to critically review what is being suggested as ‘good practice’ rather than willingly

accepting it on tentative grounds. Thus, it may be argued that my teaching in Key

Stage Two has been positively affected through a critical evaluation of educational

policy in relation to pedagogy as well as an understanding of teaching and learning

theories.

References

Altrichter, H. 2008. Teachers investigate their work : an introduction to action research across the professions. London: Routledge.

Audi, R. 2009. Epistemology : a contemporary introduction to the theory of knowledge. New York: Routledge.

23

Bakhurst, D. & Shanker, S. 2001. Jerome Bruner : language, culture, self. London: SAGE.

Balakrishnan, S. D. 2009. The role of Multiple Intelligences theory in the Malaysian Curriculum [electronic resource] [Online]. University of Leeds.

Bates, J., Lewis, S. & Pickard, A. 2011. Education policy, practice and the professional, London, Continuum.

Baumfield, V., Hall, E. & Wall, K. 2008. Action research in the classroom. London: SAGE.

Bellanca, J. A. 2009. 200+ active learning strategies and projects for engaging students' multiple intelligences. London: SAGE.

Berger, K. S. 2007. The developing person through the life span. Basingstoke: Palgrave

Biddulph, S. 2008. Raising boys : why boys are different - and how to help them become happy and well-balanced men. London: Thorsons.

Blake, N. 2003. The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of education. Oxford: Blackwell.

Bridges, D. & Smith, R. 2007. Philosophy, methodology and educational research. Malden: Blackwell.

Brown, G. & Desforges, C. 1979. Piaget's theory: a psychological critique. London:Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Brown, K. 2002. An examination of some factors in motivating religious behaviour in the light of Maslow's analysis of human psychological needs [Online]. Keele: Keele University.

Bruner, J. S. 1966. Studies in Cognitive Growth. London: Wiley.Bruner, J. S. 1973. Beyond the information given : studies in the psychology of

knowing. New York: Norton.Burton, D. & Bartlett, S. 2009. Key issues for education researchers. London, SAGE.Cardinal, D., Hayward, J. & Jones, G. 2008. Epistemology : the theory of knowledge,

London: John MurrayCarr, D. 2003. Making sense of education : an introduction to the philosophy and

theory of education and teaching, London: Routledge Falmer.Chen, J., Moran, F. & Gardner, H. (eds.) 2009. Multiple intelligences across the

world. San Franscisco: Jossey Bassey.Claxton, C. S. 1978. Learning Styles : their impact on Teaching and Administration.

Washington: American Association for Higher Education.Coffield, F. 2004. Should we be using learning styles? What research has to say to

practice. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre.Coffield, F. 2008. Just suppose teaching and learning became the first priority,

London: Learning and Skills Network.Coghlan, D. & Brannick, T. 2005. Doing action research in your own organization.

London: Sage.Cohen, D. 1983. Piaget : critique and reassessment. Beckenham: Croom Helm Ltd.Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. 2011. Research methods in education. London:

Routledge.Coolican, H. 2009. Research methods and statistics in psychology. London: Hodder

Education.Corvi, R. 1997. An introduction to the thought of Karl Popper. London: Routledge.Creswell, J. W. 2012. Educational research : planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research. London: Pearson.

24

Currie, K. 2003. Multiple Intelligence Theory and the ESL Classroom -- Preliminary Considerations [Online]. Brazil: Federal University of Espírito Santo.

Dancy, J., Sosa, E. & Steup, M. 2010. A companion to epistemology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Dawson, C. & Dawson, C. P. g. t. r. m. 2009. Introduction to research methods : a practical guide for anyone undertaking a research project. Oxford : How To Books.

Dean, J. 2009. Organising learning in the primary school classroom, London, Routledge.

Dennison, P., E (ed.) 2006. Brain Gym and me. Ventura, California: Edc - Kinaesthetic.

Dennison, P. E. & Dennison, G. (eds.) 1994. Brain Gym (Revised). California: Edu- Kinaesthetic.

Denscombe, M. 2006. The good research guide for small-scale social research projects, Maidenhead, Open University Press.

Denzine, G. 2005. The Existence of Learning Styles: Myth or Reality [Online]. [Accessed 22.10.11 2011].

DfE. 2011. National Curriculum update – recent review activity [Online]. London: DfE.

Elton-Chalcraft, S., Hansen, A. & Twiselton, S. 2008. Doing classroom research : a step-by-step guide for student teachers. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Ercikan, K. & Roth, W.-M. 2009. Generalizing from educational research : beyond qualitative and quantitative polarization. London: Routledge.

Fogarty, R. & Stoehr, J. 2008. Integrating curricula with multiple intelligences : teams, themes, & threads. London: SAGE.

Franklin, S. 2006. VAKing out learning styles—why the notion of ‘learning styles’ is unhelpful to teachers. Education 3–13, 34, 81-87.

Gardner, H. 1991. The unschooled mind : how children think and how schools should teach. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. 1999. Intelligence reframed : multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. 2006. Multiple intelligences : new horizons. New York: Basic Books.Gold, R. 1977. Reasons for Failure on Piaget's Conservation Task. [electronic

resource] [Online]. Oxford: University of Oxford. Goodley, D. 2011. Self-advocacy in the lives of people with learning difficulties : the

politics of resilience. Buckingham: Open University.Hammersley, M. 2007. Educational research and evidence-based practice. London:

SAGE.Hann, G. H. 1977. A Critique of Piaget's Work on the Development of Mathematical

and Logical Thinking. [electronic resource] [Online]. London: University of London.

Author. 2005. Learning Styles TES, 4th November, p.23.Author. 2007. Professor pans 'learning style' teaching method. The Telegraph 29th

July, p.19.Herr, K. & Anderson, G. L. 2005. The action research dissertation : a guide for

students and faculty. London: SAGE.Hesse-Biber, S. N. & Leavy, P. 2004. Approaches to qualitative research : a reader

on theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Hoerr, T. R. 2010. Celebrating every learner : activities and strategies for creating a

multiple intelligences classroom. Chichester: Wiley.

25

Honey, P. & Mumford, A. 1992. The manual of learning styles. Maidenhead: P. Honey.

Howard- Jones, P. 2007. About the brain. Neuroscience and Education: Issues and Opportunities. A Commentary by the Teaching and Learning Research Programme. University of Bristol: Economic and Social Research Council.

Humphreys, P. 1985. Social psychology : development, experience and behaviour in a social world. Block 5, Attitude theories : ancient and modern. Unit 17/18, Changing attitudes. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Ions, E. 1977. Against behaviourism : a critique of behavioural science. Oxford: Blackwell.

Joyce, B. R., Weil, M. & Calhoun, E. 2011. Models of teaching. London: Pearson Education International.

Kanjirathinkal, M. J. 1990. A sociological critique of theories of cognitive development : the limitations of Piaget and Kohlberg. Lampeter: Edwin Mellen.

Kincheloe, J. L. & Berry, K. S. 2004. Rigour and complexity in educational research : conceptualizing the bricolage. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

King, P. W. 2010. Climbing Maslow's pyramid : choosing your own path through life. Leicester:Matador.

Kingston, P. 2004. Fashion Victims. Could tests to diagnose 'learning styles' do more harm than good. [Online]. London: TES.

Kolb, D. A. 1973. Towards a typology of learning styles and learning environments an investigation of the Impact.

Kornhaber, M. L., Fierros, E. G. & Veenema, S. A. 2004. Multiple intelligences : best ideas from research and practice. London: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.

Kumar, R. 2005. Research methodology : a step-by-step guide for beginners, London: SAGE.

Kyriacou, C. 2009. Effective teaching in schools: theory and practice. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes.

Levinson, P. & Popper, K. R. 1982. In pursuit of truth : essays on the philosophy of Karl Popper on the occasion of his 80th birthday. Brighton: Harvester.

Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: California Sage Publications.

Lunt, I. & Norwich, B. 1999. Can effective schools be inclusive schools? Institute of Education.

Magee, B. 1985. Philosophy and the real world : an introduction to Karl Popper. La Salle: Open Court.

Mamchur, C. (ed.) 1996. Cognitive type theory and learning style. Virginia: ASCD.Martella, R. C., Nelson, J. R. & Marchand-Martella, N. E. 1999. Research methods:

learning to become a critical research consumer. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Matzner, E. E. & Jarvis, I. C. E. 1998. Papers from the Vienna workshop on Popper's

situational analysis and the social sciences. Matzner: SAGE.McMillan, J. H. & Wergin, J. F. 2006. Understanding and evaluating educational

research, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.McNeil, F. 2009. Learning with the brain in mind, London: SAGE.McNiff, J. & Whitehead, J. 2002. Action research : principles and practice. London:

Routledge Falmer.McNiff, J. & Whitehead, J. 2011. All you need to know about action research. Los

Angeles: SAGE.

26

Mertens, D. M. 2005. Research and evaluation in education and psychology: integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. London: SAGE.

Modgil, S., Modgil, C. & Brown, G. 1983. Jean Piaget : an interdisciplinary critique, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Modgil, S. E. 1983. Jean Piaget : an interdisciplinary critique, London, R.K.P.Moser, P. K. 2002. The Oxford handbook of epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.Murphy Sonbuchner, G. (ed.) 2008. The learning styles handbook for teachers and

tutors. Bloomington: Author House.Musgrave, A. 1999. Essays on realism and rationalism, Amsterdam, Rodopi.Nash, R. J. 2002. "Real world" ethics : frameworks for educators and human service

professionals. New York: Teachers College Press.Nind, M. 2003. Inclusive education: diverse perspectives. London: David Fulton.Norwich, B., Warnock, M. & Terzi, L. 2010. Special educational needs: a new look.

London: Continuum.O'Hear, A. 1995. Karl Popper: philosophy and problems. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Olson, D. R. 2007. Jerome Bruner : the cognitive revolution in educational theory.

London: Continuum.Olssen, M. 2008. Toward a global thin community : Nietzsche, Foucault, and the

cosmopolitan commitment. London: Paradigm Publishers.Palti, G. 1998. A Study of the Socio-Emotional Aspects of Educationally Resilient

Dyslexic Pupils. Doctorate in Education, University of Bristol.Author. 2004. Learning Styles / Multiple Intelligences / Left v Right Brain Learning

The Guardian, p.11.Parusniková, Z. & Cohen, R. S. 2009. Rethinking Popper. London: Springer.Popper, K. R. & Bunge, M. 1964. The Critical Approach to Science and Philosophy.

Edited by Mario Bunge. In honour of Karl R. Popper. [With a portrait and a bibliography.], pp. xv. 480. Free Press of Glencoe. London: Macmillan

Popper, K. R. & Miller, D. 1985. Popper selections, Princeton: University Press.Popper-Lynkeus, J. 1995. The individual and the value of human life. London:

Rowman & Littlefield.Portes, P. R. & Salas, S. 2011. Vygotsky in 21st century society : advances in

cultural historical theory and praxis with non-dominant communities. New York: Peter Lang.

Prashnig, B. 2005. Learning Styles vs. Multiple Intelligences (MI) Two Concepts for Enhancing Learning and Teaching. Teaching Expertise, 1-9.

Prashnig, B. 2006. Learning styles in action. Stafford: Network Continuum Education.

Pring, R. 2005. Philosophy of education : aims, theory, common sense and research. London: Continuum.

Pritchard, A. 2005. Ways of learning : learning theories and learning styles in the classroom. London: David Fulton.

Reich, R. 2003. The Socratic Method: What it is and How to Use it in the Classroom. Speaking of Teaching. Stanford University, 13, 1-4.

Reid, G. 2005. Learning styles and inclusion. London: Paul Chapman.Renner, J. W. 1976. Research, Teaching, and Learning with the Piaget Model,

Oklahoma: Norman

27

Richardson, J. T. E. 1996. Handbook of qualitative research methods for psychology and the social sciences. Leicester: BPS Books.

Robertson, M. & Cavanna, A. 2008. Tourette syndrome. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Robson, C. 2011. Real world research: a resource for users of social research methods in applied settings. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Rogers, C. R. 1982. The effective teacher: a person-centred development guide, Sheffield: PAVIC Publications.

Sagor, R. 2005. The action research guidebook : a four-step process for educators and school teams. London: Corwin Press.

Sanger, J. 1996. The compleat observer? : a field research guide to observation, London: Falmer Press.

Sassower, R. 2006. Popper's legacy: rethinking politics, economics and science, Stocksfield: Acumen.

Schilpp, P. A. 1974. The philosophy of Karl Popper, La Salle, Ill., Open Court.Seltman, M. & Seltman, P. 1985. Piaget's logic : a critique of genetic epistemology,

London: Allen & Unwin.Seltman, M. & Seltman, P. E. J. 1985. Piaget's logic : a critique of genetic

epistemology. London: Allen & Unwin.Shannon, A. B. 1987. A critique of Piaget's formal operational stage of development.

[electronic resource] [Online]. University of Keele. Sharp, J., Byrne, J. & Bowker, R. 2008. The trouble with VAK. Educational futures.

British Education Studies Association, 1, 89-97.Shayer, M. 1978. A test of the validity of piaget's construct of formal operational

thinking. [electronic resource]. University of London.Silverman, D. 1997. Qualitative research : theory, method and practice. London:

SAGE.Silverman, D. 2009. Doing qualitative research : a practical handbook. London:

SAGE.Simons, H. 2009. Case study research in practice. London: SAGE.Simpson, M. & Tuson, J. 2008. Using observations in small-scale research.

Glasgow: SCRE Centre, University of Glasgow.Sims, R. R. & Sims, S. J. 2006. Learning styles and learning : a key to meeting the

accountability demands in education, New York: Nova Science Publishers.Smith, A. & Call, N. 1999. The alps approach : accelerated learning in primary

schools : brain-based methods for accelerating motivation and achievement. Stafford: Network Educational Press.

Smith, A. & Lovatt, M. 2003. Accelerated learning : a user's guide, Stafford, Network Educational Press.

Smith, L. 1981. Piaget's genetic epistemology : a theoretical critique of main epistemic concepts. [electronic resource] [Online]. University of Leicester.

Sprenger, M. 2008. Differentiation through learning styles and memory, Thousand Oaks, CA ; London, Corwin Press.

Stanley, N. 2005. Learning Styles – What can they offer? Programmes Centre for Secondary and Vocational Education [Online].

Steup, M., Dancy, J. & Sosa, E. 2010. A companion to epistemology, Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell.

Stringer, E. T. 1999. Action research, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Stronach, I. & MacLure, M. 1997. Educational research undone : the postmodern

embrace. Buckingham: Open University Press.

28

Thomas, R. M. 1998. Conducting educational research : a comparative view. London: Bergin & Garvey.

Thorndike, E. L. 1962. Psychology and the Science of Education : selected writings of Edward L Thorndike. New York: Bureau of Publications.

Veer, R. v. d. 2007. Lev Vygotsky. London: Continuum.Vuyk, R. 1981. Overview and critique of Piaget's genetic epistemology 1965-1980.

London: Academic Press.Wallace, B. 2006. Teaching thinking skills across the middle years: a practical

approach for children aged 9-14. Don't Work Harder! Work Smarter! Educational Research, 1, 1-24.

Ward, S. & Eden, C. 2010. Key issues in education policy. London: SAGE.Williams, D. E. 1989. Truth, hope, and power : the thought of Karl Popper, University

of Toronto Press.Williams, R. B. 2007. Multiple intelligences for differentiated learning, Thousand

Oaks: Corwin Press.Winch, C., Gingell, J. & Winch, C. K. c. i. t. p. o. e. 2008. Philosophy of education :

the key concepts. London: Routledge.Yin, R. K. 2009. Case study research : design and methods. London: SAGE.Zecha, G. 1999. Critical rationalism and educational discourse. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

29