The Building Thinking Classroom saga is not over; it is simply one example of the indirect teaching methods that American education has become enamored with, despite their poor results and lack of evidence. This new wave of instruction begins with a faulty assumption that every student learns differently, which simply isn’t true.
Key research and reviews on learning styles
- Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, Bjork (2008) — Learning styles assessments lack an adequate evidence base for guiding instruction. Psychological Science in the Public Interest.
- Newton (2015) — The learning styles belief is a common neuromyth and is not supported by research, despite widespread acceptance. Frontiers in Psychology.
- Whitman (2023) — There is no empirical evidence that matching teaching to a preferred learning style improves outcomes. The Clearing House.
- Rogowsky, Calhoun, Tallal (2015) — Matching visual or auditory preferences to instructional mode did not improve comprehension or retention. Journal of Educational Psychology.
- Rogowsky, Calhoun, Tallal (2020) — Providing instruction based on stated learning style preferences does not improve learning. Follow-up experimental study.
- Cuevas (2015) — Comprehensive analysis found that methodologically strong studies tend to refute learning styles based instruction. Frontiers in Psychology.
- Lyle, Bujak, et al. (2023) — Attempts to match learning style to instructional format did not help and could penalize learning. Peer-reviewed experimental work.
Greg Ashman, PhD, an educator, has done an excellent job documenting the flaws in this approach and recently began a series exposing the myths that so-called experts use to promote indirect teaching methods like the Flipped Classroom and BTC.
It was striking to hear one Board of Education member, who couldn’t even bring herself to acknowledge a problem existed, finally ask why student performance has declined. The answer has been clear all along-perhaps now she will recognize that what we have been saying for the past three years has merit and that our reporting on this issue was, in fact, credible.
If Ashman’s research and family feedback aren’t enough, perhaps we can start listening to our students.
Key quotes from student representatives
-
I think there is value in textbook learning. I want people to learn content on the paper, not just the computer.
-
We had the thinking classrooms in math with a lot of group work. Sometimes kids get embarrassed if they do not understand and other kids move ahead of them.
-
In group work one kid gets the problem and we all just plug it into the Chromebook. That happened with Mathspace and DeltaMath.
-
Maybe include student feedback on how we like to learn. Sometimes I am embarrassed that I do not understand and I do not want to say anything, so I do not get it and we move on.
-
With instruction on whiteboards and group work it was not very efficient. Some students rush to do the problem and others just stand around and do nothing.
-
When it comes time for a test those students fail because they do not understand what they are learning.
-
With direct instruction I have seen significant improvement and results.
-
We need better solutions than just sending surveys to student email.
Our students are speaking up but where are the parents?
If we had the same number of parents and politicians show up for Math and Science as they did for a mythical turf field perhaps our scores would be in a far better place.
Full Student Comments:
Read All Articles on Education
Invest in Independent Local Journalism
NJ21st is powered by facts, not special interests. If our reporting helped you stay informed, please consider making a contribution. Every donation strengthens accountability, transparency, and the future of local news in New Jersey.
Contribute TodayRelated Articles
Three Important Changes: State DOE increases Transparency, Accountability and Clarity
NJDOE Assessment Shift: The Public’s Right to Know on Accountability and Comparability
The Argument for Open Access in High School
