As I have been promising, here is the much awaited post on the origins of VARK (for information on what VARK is, see previous posts).
Searching for the origins of VARK led me on what I can only compare to a family tree research project. Trying to track the origins of VARK was not easy; many of the papers on VARK (including many of the Fleming papers I have previously reviewed) are lacking in citations. However, in the initial VARK paper (Fleming & Mills, 1992) the authors mention that there had previously been discussion of the influence of sensory modality preferences on behavior and learning in research and theories that surrounded a topic known as Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP).
Now, I have a BS in neurobiology and a PhD in psychology (my research was in cognitive neuroscience). My graduate advisor studies language and the brain and has helped to develop one of the eminent models for how language is processed in the human brain. So, one would naturally conclude that I have studied something called Neuro-linguistic programming…right?
Now, I have a BS in neurobiology and a PhD in psychology (my research was in cognitive neuroscience). My graduate advisor studies language and the brain and has helped to develop one of the eminent models for how language is processed in the human brain. So, one would naturally conclude that I have studied something called Neuro-linguistic programming…right?
Wrong! I can honestly say that before VARK I had never heard of NLP. I would venture to assume that my former advisor, an expert on language and the brain (he is writing a textbook on the subject), has never heard of NLP. So, what the heck is NLP?
My searching led me to find that NLP was created by Richard Bandler (a student of mathematics and computer science) and John Grinder (professor of Linguistics). According to Tosey & Mathison (2007), NLP “denotes a view that a person is a whole mind-body system with patterned connections between internal experience (‘neuro’), language (‘linguistic’), and learned behavioral strategies (‘programming’).”
From what I can piece together, the original NLP studies consisted of case studies of three psychotherapists: Fritz Perls (founder of Gestalt therapy), Virginia Satir (a family therapist), and Milton Erikson (a hypnotherapist) (Tosey & Mathison, 2007). Bandler and Grinder noticed that there were certain characteristic in common with the way that these therapists treated their patients. They noticed language use, tone of language, body language, and many other behaviors these therapists emplyed during their psychotherapy sessions. Bandler and Grinder deemed these three therapists as very successful therapists (I have no idea whether they are correct or not- that's getting way off topic). The point was, if they could specifically address and model the specific behaviors of a successful therapist, other therapists could be trained to employ such techniques as well and more patients could be helped.
So, Bandler and Grinder's theory was specifically developed with therapeutic applications in mind, but (since the 1970's) has been more generally applied as a method of communication and personal development in the following fields: managerial, sales, marketing, consulting, medicine, and law.
From what I can piece together, the original NLP studies consisted of case studies of three psychotherapists: Fritz Perls (founder of Gestalt therapy), Virginia Satir (a family therapist), and Milton Erikson (a hypnotherapist) (Tosey & Mathison, 2007). Bandler and Grinder noticed that there were certain characteristic in common with the way that these therapists treated their patients. They noticed language use, tone of language, body language, and many other behaviors these therapists emplyed during their psychotherapy sessions. Bandler and Grinder deemed these three therapists as very successful therapists (I have no idea whether they are correct or not- that's getting way off topic). The point was, if they could specifically address and model the specific behaviors of a successful therapist, other therapists could be trained to employ such techniques as well and more patients could be helped.
So, Bandler and Grinder's theory was specifically developed with therapeutic applications in mind, but (since the 1970's) has been more generally applied as a method of communication and personal development in the following fields: managerial, sales, marketing, consulting, medicine, and law.
To backtrack a bit, I have a confession to make. When I first saw that there was this topic (NLP) which I had never heard of, I did what I usually do whenever I want to look up information on something that I otherwise know nothing about- I googled it and followed the first link to Wikipedia. Now, this is pretty hypocritical of me. I don't allow students to use Wikipedia as a source for their research papers. I always tell my students to look at Wikipedia for information, but to just make sure you go and validate that information with a more reputable source (a journal article or a book). But here I go quoting Wikipedia anyway:
Reviews of empirical research on NLP showed that NLP contains numerous factual errors, and failed to produce reliable results for the claims for effectiveness made by NLP’s originators and proponents. According to Devilly, NLP is no longer as prevalent as it was in the 70s and 80s. Criticisms go beyond the lack of empirical evidence for effectiveness; critics say that NLP exhibits pseudoscientific characteristics, title, concepts and terminology. NLP is used as an example of pseudoscience for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level. NLP also appears on peer reviewed expert-consensus based lists of discredited interventions. In research designed to identify the “quack factor” in modern mental health practice, Norcross et al (2006) list NLP as possibly or probably discredited, and in papers reviewing discredited interventions for substance and alcohol abuse, Norcross et al (2008) list NLP in the “top ten” most discredited, and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP as “certainly discredited”.
So I had just started looking into NLP and already my “uh-oh” radar was going off .
When looking for the theoretical papers on NLP, I found that most of that information had been published in a handful of books. These were titled The Structure of Magic I: A book about language and therapy and The Structure of Magic II: A book about communication and change. Their most popular book on NLP was titled Frogs into Princes. This set my "uh oh" radar going again. This focus on book writing instead of journal article writing is important in academics. Books are not peer-reviewed. True scientific writing, theory, and research goes into a journal. All writing in journals goes through a rigorous peer review process (if you have ever been on the receiving side of a tough review, you know just how rigorous this process can be!).
When looking for the theoretical papers on NLP, I found that most of that information had been published in a handful of books. These were titled The Structure of Magic I: A book about language and therapy and The Structure of Magic II: A book about communication and change. Their most popular book on NLP was titled Frogs into Princes. This set my "uh oh" radar going again. This focus on book writing instead of journal article writing is important in academics. Books are not peer-reviewed. True scientific writing, theory, and research goes into a journal. All writing in journals goes through a rigorous peer review process (if you have ever been on the receiving side of a tough review, you know just how rigorous this process can be!).
Alas, my purpose for this post was not to write about NLP's merit or lack of merit. My purpose was to write about how NLP led to VARK. This is why it has taken me so long to write this particular post. I wanted to find specific parts of NLP and how those eventually branched into VARK, not get into the “NLP is good or bad” argument. After much searching, I eventually found what I was looking for.
So, one way to define NLP is as a method/model of effective communication. Such a model would contain various components of the communication process including specifics on the sending and receiving of information. The NLP model includes all of this and even further subdivided effective communication into verbal and non-verbal processes and many other categories.
To elaborate, NLP proposed that we have “representational systems” (also known as sensory modalities) as part of our communication process: "At the core of NLP is the belief that, when people are engaged in activities, they are also making use of a representational system; that is, they are using some internal representation of the materials they are involved with, such as a conversation, a rifle shot, a spelling task. These representations can be visual, auditory, kinesthetic, or involve the other senses. In addition, a person may be creating a representation or recalling one. For example, a person asked to spell a word may visualize that word printed on a piece of paper, may hear it being sounded out, or may construct the spelling from the application of a series of logical rules." (Druckman, 1988)
To represent all of the senses, the abbreviation VAKOG (Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic, Olfactory, and Gustatory) was formed. Over time, it was refined to VAK, as those are the three main sensory modalities that are used. One of the more bizarre and refuted aspects of NLP is that someone’s eye gaze reveals their mode of internal processing. This portion of the theory is just plain bizarre (and according to research, just plain wrong!- see Sharpley (1987) for more on this). See the image below- this was claimed to be one of the common arrangements for how eye movements and internal processing related.
 |
| From Bandler and Grinder (1979) |
Vc = constructed visual image (ie. imagining something in pictures)
Vr = recalling visual image (ie. remembering something in pictures)
Ac = constructed auditory signal (ie. imagining something in sounds)
Ar = recalling auditory signal (ie. remembering something in sounds)
K = kinesthetic processing (ie. Revealed by their use of words- for example, if someone is thinking about a topic and they say “I just can’t get a grip on it” – the use of the word grip indicates kinesthetic processing)
Ai = auditory internal dialogue (ie. Talking to one’s self)
Bandler and Grinder also proposed that we have preferred "representational systems" that we use when communicating with others. It is not hard to see how this particular aspect of NLP lead to current VARK learning style theories.
On a related side note, Bandler later backpedaled on the "preferred representational systems" part of NLP theory and had revised NLP to minimize the importance of such systems (Druckman, 1988)).
So, it appears NLP suggested preferred representational systems (sensory modalities), labeled them as VAKOG, then VAK, and Fleming & Mills (1992) tweaked it to VARK.
Daniel Druckman (Ed.) (1988), Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theories, and Techniques(pp.138-139)
Sharpley C.F. (1987). "Research Findings on Neuro-linguistic Programming: Non supportive Data or an Untestable Theory". Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, (1), pp 103–107,105.
Tosey, P & Mathison, J. (2007). "Fabulous Creatures of HRD: A Critical Natural History of Neuro-Linguistic Programming." International Conference on Human Resource Development Research and Practice across Europe, Oxford Business School.
No comments:
Post a Comment