Skip to main content
Read page text
page 6
04 Learning styles and research I was not a signatory to the letter to The Guardian outlining the issues with learning styles, but would like to respond to Professor Rita Jordan’s letter to The Psychologist (May issue), in which she argued in favour of learning styles and against lectures for educators. Rejecting the notion of learning styles does not necessitate a onesize-fits-all approach to teaching and learning. The specific problem with teaching according to learning styles is that students practise learning in a domain in which they are already comfortable, not getting the chance to improve in the domains with which they struggle. The alternative to learning styles is not to move away from personalised approaches, but surely to help students develop skills across all domains so that they can access all varieties of educational material. Further, giving lectures to educators does not preclude fruitful collaborations between researchers and teachers. There are now many examples of teachers and researchers working collaboratively to establish which research questions interest teachers, ensuring findings will be relevant to the classroom (see for example the Wellcome Trust and Education Endowment Foundation education and neuroscience projects). As Jordan advocates, psychologists are increasingly communicating with educators to determine the most effective approaches to teaching and learning. Raising awareness of myths within the teaching profession is just one way in which researchers can support educators as part of a wider dialogue. Annie Brookman-Byrne Birkbeck, University of London I am delighted that my letter ‘Why don’t educators listen to us?’ (May 2017) has provoked some discussion of the nature of evidence and, in particular, evidence-based practice (letter by Professor Hood, June 2017). However, I would like the discussion to be fruitful and not hampered by misconceptions about my position. I do not advocate meshing, or ignoring the results of RCTs, as Professor Hood acknowledges. The use of quotation marks around the terms ‘scientific’ and ‘evidence’ is not a mark of disrespect for these concepts (any more than Professor Hood’s quotation marks around ‘neuromyth’ implies he is now disowning that term). I strongly identify as a scientist and, working as I do in the field of autism, I am acutely aware of pseudo-scientific claims for interventions and the harm they can do. What I am drawing attention to is the way that both ‘scientific’ and ‘evidence’ have developed very narrow meanings, often restricted to the use of certain research procedures such as RCTs. Stephen Jay Gould, in his 1989 book Wonderful Life has detailed the dangers of these narrow conceptualisations in a far more erudite and engaging way than I can manage, and I would urge all psychologists to read G i d e o n M e n d e l / I n P i c t u r e s / C o r b i s v i a G e t t y I m a g e s this seminal work. Professor Hood says that he teaches critical thinking and I am delighted to hear it. But I read and review a large number of academic papers, and I am weary of the number in education that identify apparent ‘failures’ of practitioners to use practices appearing on approved lists and then suggest ways in which they should be ‘encouraged’ to do so. The researchers do not attempt to measure the success of the interventions being used by the parents or teachers, but instead assume their inappropriateness simply because they are not on that list. I do not want to do away with RCTs or ignore their findings, but they can only address certain questions and are of only partial use in deciding on interventions for individuals. A significant advance in child leukaemia treatment was made when a French physician examined in detail the results of a large RCT, testing a particular drug. The overall finding of the trial was that the drug was no more effective (overall) than a placebo. The physician noted, as is often the case, that these overall results obscured the individual variation in the data; for the majority it was indeed the case that the drug was ineffective but there was a small group for whom it appeared to work very well. By examining in detail and comparing the good and the no-responders, an entirely new form of childhood leukaemia was identified for whom that drug was very effective. Improvements in the treatment of childhood leukaemia over a long period have largely been based on the identification and targeted treatment of subtypes. We need to develop scientific skills of observation and critical analysis in all educators so they can take account of RCT research but, through individualisation, develop that into genuine ‘evidence-based’ practice, and for everyone, not just those with special needs. Professor Rita Jordan OBE Emeritus Professor in Autism Studies University of Birmingham
page 7
Religious conflict? Samuel Landau, in a ‘Careers’ piece in the April edition, wrote of his challenges in integrating his two hats: that of a community rabbi and that of a clinical psychologist. He finds his rabbi-hat unwelcome in the largely secular professional environment, and his psychologisthat troublesome in the synagogue. I must disagree with his suggestion that psychology is fundamentally in conflict with religion. Landau goes so far as to claim that his psychological training has resulted in it becoming ‘uncomfortable to preach messages that do not incorporate the complexity of lived experience’, a severe critique of religion. Additionally, he perceives the fixedmoral framework within which he must counsel his congregants as the unique predicament of the religious. I would suggest that Landau has made a critical oversight in formulating his conclusions. Do not all clinical psychologists encounter clients who have perpetrated or are at risk of perpetrating behaviours that must be condemned? When encountered with a client who is at risk of harming themselves or others, or perpetrating an otherwise illegal behaviour, does any psychologist – irrespective of religious affiliation – have a choice other than to condemn the behaviour? By definition, all psychologists operate within a legally and morally determined framework, and whilst the psychologist operating within a religious setting may have to contend with a more highly specified framework, the essential predicament is universal. Consequently, it is of universal importance to consider the distinction between condemnation of the behaviour itself and the individual who has perpetrated or is at risk of perpetrating it. Whilst one would expect the clinical psychologists working at Broadmoor to resoundingly condemn the perpetrated atrocities, one would equally expect that they have the utmost sympathy for the mentally ill who have perpetrated them. From a religious standpoint too, there must be room to distinguish between condemnation of a behaviour that stands in breach of religious law and the tolerance born of appreciating the specific circumstances of the individual who is struggling with that law. Indeed, the ‘complexity of lived experience’ dictates that no one can judge others for their behavioural shortcomings, without necessitating compromise in our moral judgement of those behaviours. In prescribing an array of sometimes challenging behavioural ideals, religion calls for a life of constant striving to ever better one’s character. Self-improvement, for religious and secular alike, is a gradual process that will inevitably be marred by setbacks, and will never result in absolute perfection. Religion acknowledges the gulf between the actual selves of the less-than-perfect beings that we are and asks of its adherents that they do their utmost to strive for their ideal selves. I encourage Landau to use his psychologist-hat to approach the world ‘with a position of curiosity, non-judgement and understanding’ to empirically further his understanding of the human experience, whilst simultaneously using his rabbi-hat to ensure that he remains uncompromising in his moral ideals. Then he will be bestpositioned to assist his congregants in the process of gradually closing that gap. Thanks for an intriguing monthly read. Moshe Atlas Student at the University of Derby the psychologist july 2017 letters president’s letter It’s July, often a time of transition between levels of study, training, work experience, and beginning of employment. For some these are planned milestones along a cherished career path, for others, the route is more circuitous. For some pre-tertiary psychology is the start of the journey, for others it’s the undergraduate degree. Some want to push academic frontiers, some are driven by a desire to make things better for people in one of the applied branches of the profession. How, though, do our graduates fare? The Society has just completed an analysis of the current phase of a longitudinal study that has been running since 2011. Graduates do progress towards their final career destinations in and beyond psychology 3-5 years’ post-graduation. They see significant value in their degree. They are, though, concerned about lack of practical experience and preparation for work, as well as difficulty entering postgraduate training. We know that experiences in achieving career goals can be mixed. As a result, the Society has been looking at ways we can be more supportive of our aspiring and current graduates. For example, an initial review has suggested an appetite for a level of membership that would provide specific professional support for those in the wider psychological workforce. This could complement the work we already do accrediting training for such roles. Our presidential task force on modernising psychological careers has workforce planning, training and development high on the agenda, and this is reflected nationally. The House of Lords Select Committee report on the Long–term Sustainability of the NHS and Adult Social Care (April 2017) called for a ten-year rolling view of workforce planning; a flexible workforce that can adapt to new ways of working; training for the future not the present; and upskilling existing staff; noting all this will require culture change, including for professional bodies! A number of questions are posed too for our Equality, Diversity and Inclusion plan. How representative are our students and graduates of the wider population, and what actions we can take, with other stakeholders, to widen participation? Can we create coherent and streamlined pathways through the various levels of study, work roles, and training, with recognition as people build their careers? What would open up opportunity to draw the abundant supply of psychology graduates into the psychological workforce? We will be consulting with and updating the membership as work progresses. Contact Nicola Gale at PresidentsOffice@bps.org.uk

Page Text

View plaintext

04

Learning styles and research I was not a signatory to the letter to The Guardian outlining the issues with learning styles, but would like to respond to Professor Rita Jordan’s letter to The Psychologist (May issue), in which she argued in favour of learning styles and against lectures for educators.

Rejecting the notion of learning styles does not necessitate a onesize-fits-all approach to teaching and learning. The specific problem with teaching according to learning styles is that students practise learning in a domain in which they are already comfortable, not getting the chance to improve in the domains with which they struggle. The alternative to learning styles is not to move away from personalised approaches, but surely to help students develop skills across all domains so that they can access all varieties of educational material.

Further, giving lectures to educators does not preclude fruitful collaborations between researchers and teachers. There are now many examples of teachers and researchers working collaboratively to establish which research questions interest teachers, ensuring findings will be relevant to the classroom (see for example the Wellcome Trust and Education Endowment Foundation education and neuroscience projects). As Jordan advocates, psychologists are increasingly communicating with educators to determine the most effective approaches to teaching and learning. Raising awareness of myths within the teaching profession is just one way in which researchers can support educators as part of a wider dialogue. Annie Brookman-Byrne Birkbeck, University of London

I am delighted that my letter ‘Why don’t educators listen to us?’ (May 2017) has provoked some discussion of the nature of evidence and, in particular, evidence-based practice (letter by Professor Hood, June 2017). However, I would like the discussion to be fruitful and not hampered by misconceptions about my position. I do not advocate meshing, or ignoring the results of RCTs, as Professor Hood acknowledges. The use of quotation marks around the terms ‘scientific’ and ‘evidence’ is not a mark of disrespect for these concepts (any more than Professor Hood’s quotation marks around ‘neuromyth’ implies he is now disowning that term). I strongly identify as a scientist and, working as I do in the field of autism, I am acutely aware of pseudo-scientific claims for interventions and the harm they can do. What I am drawing attention to is the way that both ‘scientific’ and ‘evidence’ have developed very narrow meanings, often restricted to the use of certain research procedures such as RCTs. Stephen Jay Gould, in his 1989 book Wonderful Life has detailed the dangers of these narrow conceptualisations in a far more erudite and engaging way than I can manage, and I would urge all psychologists to read

G i d e o n

M e n d e l / I

n

P i c t u r e s / C o r b i s v i a

G e t t y I

m a g e s this seminal work.

Professor Hood says that he teaches critical thinking and I am delighted to hear it. But I read and review a large number of academic papers, and I am weary of the number in education that identify apparent ‘failures’ of practitioners to use practices appearing on approved lists and then suggest ways in which they should be ‘encouraged’ to do so. The researchers do not attempt to measure the success of the interventions being used by the parents or teachers, but instead assume their inappropriateness simply because they are not on that list.

I do not want to do away with RCTs or ignore their findings, but they can only address certain questions and are of only partial use in deciding on interventions for individuals. A significant advance in child leukaemia treatment was made when a French physician examined in detail the results of a large RCT, testing a particular drug. The overall finding of the trial was that the drug was no more effective (overall) than a placebo. The physician noted, as is often the case, that these overall results obscured the individual variation in the data; for the majority it was indeed the case that the drug was ineffective but there was a small group for whom it appeared to work very well. By examining in detail and comparing the good and the no-responders, an entirely new form of childhood leukaemia was identified for whom that drug was very effective. Improvements in the treatment of childhood leukaemia over a long period have largely been based on the identification and targeted treatment of subtypes.

We need to develop scientific skills of observation and critical analysis in all educators so they can take account of RCT research but, through individualisation, develop that into genuine ‘evidence-based’ practice, and for everyone, not just those with special needs. Professor Rita Jordan OBE Emeritus Professor in Autism Studies University of Birmingham

read next page

My Bookmarks

Buy this Book
Skip to main content