Learning styles don't exist...or not
tomysky made a comment the other day that got me curious. He mentioned reading something about how learning styles don't exist. I found the YouTube video under that name, and my response is, "Yah, sure, you betcha." (That would be North Dakotan sarcasm.)
I don't buy what this guy has to say because it's just plain NOT that simple. I also don't get why he's on this tangent but then says, "something close to the theory is true." Yet, he never explains what that is or how this invalidates the theory of learning styles. He simply says, "Not true, don't bother."
The fact of the matter is that just about every function of the brain seems to work on some sort of continuum. Autism is a good example. Autism is a case where you more or less fail to interact with the people around you or give any sort of emotional reciprocity. However, at the other extreme you have Williams Syndrome, which is a chromosomal defect where one manifestation is that the person is excessively sociable.
Saying that there is no such thing as a verbal learner ignores the fact that there are people out there who have auditory processing disorders, which is a full-scale learning disability. It ignores the fact that there are dyslexics who cannot assimilate information via the written word. In both cases, there is a full-blown brick wall when it comes to learning a certain way. So why is it so hard that to believe that in the general population, these abilities might be distributed such that some people will learn better visually and some will learn better auditorily? I find it far more difficult to believe that our brains work as binary operators. (But heck, let's just make those dyslexics learn to read anyway!)
We know full well that verbal and visual reasoning in the population are distributed normally, and this is highly reproduceable. In some individuals, these reasoning abilities may trend together, but they don't have to. They measure these abilities with IQ tests, and these tests are among the most accurate and repeatable psychological tests. If we know that people can reason better in some ways rather than others, doesn't it follow that they may learn better based on these abilities as well?
In my own situation, I find it hard to believe because my older son has extremely high visual-spatial reasoning scores. I've brought him to many doctors, neuroscientists, and psychologists. One person tells me that my son probably has an auditory processing disorder, but his visual skills are exceptional so he compensates using those. Another person said that he had high visual skills, so his preference to use those created a de-facto auditory learning disability. It's essentially a chicken and the egg question, but the end effect is the same. My son can learn only small amounts with his auditory skills. If he relies on them, he will perform far below his capabilities and his peers. If he is put in a situation where he can use visual skills, he can outperform someone several years older than him in many regards. (This is, again, not as simple as it seems...there may be issues of memory and other things affecting how he processes information in one regard versus the other.)
What is so interesting about this, however, is that as a "visual" learner, you would automatically think he would be highly interested in math. Not so. In fact, when he was IQ tested, he was shown has having a higher verbal than non-verbal IQ. This kid can read voraciously (and does), but he cannot learn much, if anything, by sitting in a lecture and listening to someone talk. This is why it isn't a simple case of saying that trying to isolate those skills/styles/preferences doesn't produce the expected result. It's because there are several aspects to learning that interact, and they don't operate in precise mathematically derived quantities.
So yeah, I'm pretty skeptical. It looks more to me like a swipe at those who advocate for reaching out to students who learn differently. What he fails to mention is that classrooms that assume that there are several ways to learn and demonstrate learning (perhaps by implementing principles of universal design, for example) often work better for all students. Secondly, it ignores, in my opinion, a very important facet of good teaching: assuming that all students are capable of learning. I know that not all students will learn given the constraints of a normal classroom and limited time, but assuming that students just get it or not is just a way to avoid responsibility for student outcomes and reduce effort on the part of the teacher. I know of many parents who brought a learning-disabled but otherwise highly gifted student home for schooling because the public schools could not or would not accomodate such students. Yet, these children had the freedom to try many approaches, methods, and curriculums and were able to work up to their full potential (i.e. above that of their age peers).
Education in our country has a "one-size fits all" mentality already. This is not going to help this. Interestingly enough, there is a follow-up video saying that this doesn't mean there should be no differentiation in instruction based on learning styles. So how about IQ which does have considerable amounts of supporting evidence? And if IQ can measure verbal and visual reasoning skills, doesn't it make sense to differentiate based on those?
I don't buy what this guy has to say because it's just plain NOT that simple. I also don't get why he's on this tangent but then says, "something close to the theory is true." Yet, he never explains what that is or how this invalidates the theory of learning styles. He simply says, "Not true, don't bother."
The fact of the matter is that just about every function of the brain seems to work on some sort of continuum. Autism is a good example. Autism is a case where you more or less fail to interact with the people around you or give any sort of emotional reciprocity. However, at the other extreme you have Williams Syndrome, which is a chromosomal defect where one manifestation is that the person is excessively sociable.
Saying that there is no such thing as a verbal learner ignores the fact that there are people out there who have auditory processing disorders, which is a full-scale learning disability. It ignores the fact that there are dyslexics who cannot assimilate information via the written word. In both cases, there is a full-blown brick wall when it comes to learning a certain way. So why is it so hard that to believe that in the general population, these abilities might be distributed such that some people will learn better visually and some will learn better auditorily? I find it far more difficult to believe that our brains work as binary operators. (But heck, let's just make those dyslexics learn to read anyway!)
We know full well that verbal and visual reasoning in the population are distributed normally, and this is highly reproduceable. In some individuals, these reasoning abilities may trend together, but they don't have to. They measure these abilities with IQ tests, and these tests are among the most accurate and repeatable psychological tests. If we know that people can reason better in some ways rather than others, doesn't it follow that they may learn better based on these abilities as well?
In my own situation, I find it hard to believe because my older son has extremely high visual-spatial reasoning scores. I've brought him to many doctors, neuroscientists, and psychologists. One person tells me that my son probably has an auditory processing disorder, but his visual skills are exceptional so he compensates using those. Another person said that he had high visual skills, so his preference to use those created a de-facto auditory learning disability. It's essentially a chicken and the egg question, but the end effect is the same. My son can learn only small amounts with his auditory skills. If he relies on them, he will perform far below his capabilities and his peers. If he is put in a situation where he can use visual skills, he can outperform someone several years older than him in many regards. (This is, again, not as simple as it seems...there may be issues of memory and other things affecting how he processes information in one regard versus the other.)
What is so interesting about this, however, is that as a "visual" learner, you would automatically think he would be highly interested in math. Not so. In fact, when he was IQ tested, he was shown has having a higher verbal than non-verbal IQ. This kid can read voraciously (and does), but he cannot learn much, if anything, by sitting in a lecture and listening to someone talk. This is why it isn't a simple case of saying that trying to isolate those skills/styles/preferences doesn't produce the expected result. It's because there are several aspects to learning that interact, and they don't operate in precise mathematically derived quantities.
So yeah, I'm pretty skeptical. It looks more to me like a swipe at those who advocate for reaching out to students who learn differently. What he fails to mention is that classrooms that assume that there are several ways to learn and demonstrate learning (perhaps by implementing principles of universal design, for example) often work better for all students. Secondly, it ignores, in my opinion, a very important facet of good teaching: assuming that all students are capable of learning. I know that not all students will learn given the constraints of a normal classroom and limited time, but assuming that students just get it or not is just a way to avoid responsibility for student outcomes and reduce effort on the part of the teacher. I know of many parents who brought a learning-disabled but otherwise highly gifted student home for schooling because the public schools could not or would not accomodate such students. Yet, these children had the freedom to try many approaches, methods, and curriculums and were able to work up to their full potential (i.e. above that of their age peers).
Education in our country has a "one-size fits all" mentality already. This is not going to help this. Interestingly enough, there is a follow-up video saying that this doesn't mean there should be no differentiation in instruction based on learning styles. So how about IQ which does have considerable amounts of supporting evidence? And if IQ can measure verbal and visual reasoning skills, doesn't it make sense to differentiate based on those?