There are always trends and fads in any field. Education is no different, there is always the leading research or technique that gives insight into the way students learn and are engaged in the classroom. Unfortunately under further review and research, many of these tend to be proved false. They either have no data supporting it, have negative results, or prove harmful because the technique itself harms the students, the system, or it takes valuable time and resources away from proven methods.
Among these fads include: learning styles (audio, visual, kinesthetic), Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences (and using them to teach students differently) and that different teaching strategies result in a scaled amount of remembering information. Many of these ideas are still "controversial" because there are so many proponents that support and teach these ideas. I am a double major in Comprehensive Science and Arts for Teaching and Special Education so I have had many teaching courses, but I am also a Psychology minor so I have also have a lot of supplementing course on how the mind works, cognition, and learning. There is so much research that shows that these theories are actually false but they are still being taught as fact!
In my teaching course and some of my Psychology courses the were designated for teaching I was actually taught all three of these theories as fact. I had to become a master of them, learned how to incorporate them into my teaching, and the like. However in some of my other courses and especially other Psychology courses I was taught how these were debunked and taught the research that was done for all of them. They were taught along other theories that have no empirical evidence in their research such as facilitated communication, Luminosity (and other memory improving games), and Brain Gym. It is a little disconcerting that at the same University I am taught contradicting ideas. I always sided with the research evidence. This new research that I did this week on these three topics was not surprising to me at all because I had already read so much on the topic. I do not support any of these theories. The only idea that I still think is not the worst is the connecting between learning mediums and retention. The main disagreement I had with the fad was that it gave specific percentages without research and did not allow for the many variables. I see no harm however, with agreeing with the fact that a combination or reading, seeing, and doing could harm retention. I still believe that the more that you experience and do experiments in the topic the more you will come to understand it. I still do not think that there is a hard and fast rule about percentages of retention and that any one way is better than another for everyone.
This won't be the end of teaching "fads" and there will always be people who fully support them and want everyone to incorporate them into their teaching. I may be one of them in the future for a certain technique. I will just always have to try to stay on top of research and find how the research is conducted and see if there is any empirical supporting evidence. If a colleague or administrator wants to make me incorporate them into my teaching I would probably see if it has merit or it would be detrimental in my classroom. I might be able to use some of the ideas. Although they may not be supported for having the stated results, they could at least not take anything away from my classroom and might be something different. If I really don't believe in it, I might be in a position where I would try to back up my current teaching strategies and perhaps share the research that doesn't really support their techniques to show them that I am not comfortable using something that has negative support.
