When I was finishing my teaching credential, one entire class hinged on the idea of different learning styles. There was a self assessment we received that allowed us to pinpoint our best learning style of three major ones–auditory, visual, or tactile-kinesthetic. Most of the class identified as visual learners, and the teacher pointed out that most teachers are, in fact, visual learners. That’s why we tend to present information in a visual fashion, and that’s why we fail to reach many of our students. We learned to use movement or flash cards that students could touch for those who learned better in tactile and kinesthetic ways. We learned that students who are auditory learners would often ask more questions and need repetition.

All of this knowledge fundamentally changed the way I approached teaching and my level of patience with students. The only thing that sort of bothered me about the learning styles was seeing how teachers in this particular class I was taking started to pigeon hole themselves, as in, “See, I’m a visual learner, so this other thing just doesn’t make any sense to me.” I thought that those folks were probably just a little too suggestible.

As it turns out, I might have been highly suggestible myself. The entire idea that there are different learning styles has actually never been scientifically demonstrated. I could have sworn it seemed true, but Mommy Myth Busters have just busted it.

We’ve all grown up being told that we learn better in different ways: some by doing, some by seeing, some by hearing… This notion supported by the very real feeling that we do, in fact, absorb information better in some learning environments than in others. Well, the Association for Psychological Science now says that learning styles are all a bunch of hooey. They have reviewed all recognized studies that claim that a “visual learner” or an “auditory learner” exists, and have concluded that those studies “have not used the type of randomized research designs that would make their findings credible.” That being said, it is still entirely possible that “learning styles” actually do exist, but basically what APS has declared is that nobody has ever sufficiently proven it.

Anecdotally, I can say that as a teacher, using different methods to teach not only seemed to work, it just seemed like simple common sense. Of course people learn differently, right? However, as a skeptic, I look back at my whole hearted acceptance of this notion and I’m a tiny bit embarrassed. I mean, okay, it’s understandable that I swallowed the concept, considering I picked it up in a college course taught by an education expert. However, I never asked for evidence that the effectiveness of learning styles had ever been proven. It wouldn’t have occurred to me to second guess the idea, especially because my work experience validated it.

I am constantly running into surprises like this as a skeptic. First organic food, and now learning styles? Is there nothing I can trust because it sounds right?

The LA Times has an article about autism that is worth discussing here. Studies show that up to three-quarters of families with autistic children try alternative therapies to treat the condition. A recent investigation by the Chicago Tribune found that many of these treatments have not been proven successful and, more alarmingly, could actually harm the child.

The therapies often go beyond harmless New Age folly, the investigation found. Many are unproven and risky, based on flawed, preliminary or misconstrued scientific research.

Lab tests used to justify therapies are often misleading and misinterpreted. And though some parents fervently believe their children have benefited, the investigation found a trail of disappointing results from the few clinical trials conducted to evaluate the treatments objectively.

It is easy to understand the eagerness with which parents of afflicted children desire a cure. With one in one hundred U.S. children diagnosed on the autism spectrum by the age of 8, there are a lot of people searching for answers. As we’ve discussed on this site, the heartbreaking reality is that there are no answers at this point. No one knows what causes autism or what can best treat (or possibly reverse) the condition. This means there is rampant speculation and anecdotal evidence being spread amongst parents and others in the medical field, which can lead to a child participating in unproven and possibly dangerous treatments.

The article gives a few examples of the risky treatments being performed:

The investigation found children undergoing day-long infusions of a blood product that carries the risk of kidney failure and anaphylactic shock. Researchers in the field emphatically warn that the therapy should not be used to treat autism.

Children are repeatedly encased in pressurized oxygen chambers normally used after scuba diving accidents. This unproven therapy is meant to reduce inflammation that experts say is little understood and may even be beneficial.

Children undergo rounds of chelation therapy to leach heavy metals from the body, though most toxicologists say the test commonly used to measure the metals is meaningless and the treatment potentially harmful.

It is worrisome that there are vulnerable children being subjected to these sorts of alternative procedures without scientific evidence of their benefit. At best, some of these methods would do nothing; at worst, there could be serious health consequences. There is an example cited in the article of a 5-year old autistic child who died in 2005 while undergoing a chelation treatment in a doctor’s office.

Obviously, more scientific research is needed, quickly, to help stop the misinformation. Parents need treatment options that are backed by solid evidence and hold up in clinical trials. Only then can we be sure we’re not doing more harm than good.