Learning styles

[meep]

It turns out there's really no such thing.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/daniel-willingham/the-big-idea-behind-learning.html

Comments

[easwaran]

This always reminded me of some of the very fuzzy personality psychology stuff (I suppose it's a part of it, isn't it) that sounded interesting and was very suggestive, but that I never really heard many testable predictions from. Of course, it's very difficult to say what the predictions ought to be from the bits and pieces one always hears about these theories - is watching a lecture visual or auditory? What about watching an educational video, listening to a book on tape, and reading a book?

Also, just thinking about it for a few moments, it seems likely that whatever effects there are here could easily be swamped by relevant training - learning how to effectively take notes during a lecture, or when it's useful to jump back a few paragraphs and re-read what's going on, both seem like they could easily make one mode substantially more useful to a person than another mode that was "their style of learning".

[isomorphisms]

Yeah, awhile ago I was reading an article about how one should tailor the teaching style to the subject, rather than to the learner. Makes sense to me: I'm a highly visual thinker, and a few years ago I taught a pottery lesson to a blind woman. My own technique improved in leaps and bounds after that - pottery is more tactile than visual. And don't get me started on the folks I play Celtic music with, who insist that they can't learn by ear.

[meep]

What the hell are you doing up so early?

[isomorphisms]

Woke up, couldn't get back to sleep. As for why I woke up, ask my upstairs neighbour what the hell she's doing up so early.

[meep]

Dear lord. That woman.

[collingwest]

What source is he using for the idea that students can be rigidly divided into one of three learning styles? First, there are more than three; and second, it's not as neat as that. I have seen the theory of learning styles work far too many times when applied to adult education to believe that it's "bunk."

[meep]

I'm curious as to the categories you're familiar with.

For me, what I like to do in teaching is to hit the major info modes as best as possible -- make sure I have good modulation in my voice [no monotone], drawing pictures of situations where applicable, gesturing and walking around [but not distractingly so], writing words.

It's not just a matter of learning styles, but repetition, which increases info absorption. But if you repeat something the exact same way, often they get bored.

[oxeador]

Homeopathy is still bunk.

That is too polite a way to put it.

[alcourt]

The teachers I knew were told "teach it multiple ways". It was never acceptable to teach something just one way. Make them hear it, make them see it, and if you can introduce a third method, do so. The theory supposedly was you want to drive it in from different directions and that's the way to cause retention

[oxeador]

In the comments in the article you linked to, there is a guy who says that he is a visual learner and that is why he was better at geometry than at algebra. Without knowing him, I have a different potential explanation: algebra is more abstract and harder, and the guy is not very smart.

[oxeador]

I do not mean to be insulting (even though I am about to insult you) but a smart person can understand both an abstract explanation and an visual explanation, and will be good both at geometry and at algebra. I see "I am more of a visual learner and that is why I am better at geometry than at algebra" like "I am a bit slow, and that is why I did not understand some things in school like the other kids did".