Learning Styles Don't Exist

Comment

Comment by Mirna Jope on August 18, 2012 at 5:26pm

Interesting. However, I'm thinking, "PoTAYto, poTAHto." Call it what you will but, if I'm taught in a purely lecture-based fashion, too much information will go in one ear and out the other, without much retention. As a teacher, I have seen that it's important to deliver information in a variety of ways and it's helpful to offer different options for demonstration of mastery. We weren't created with a cookie cutter. Then again, I also actually care about whether or not my students are learning something. I'm not just going through the motions and then sitting on my laurels, dusting off my hands, thinking, "Job done." How should our unique methods of retaining information be called if they're not "learning styles?"

Comment by Victor Hugo Rojas B. on August 18, 2012 at 2:12pm

Showing agreement of the students' differences in their abilities, interests, and background knowledge, but LS theory is being called into question. More about this controversial topic at http://www.changemag.org/Archives/Back+Issues/September-October+201...

Comment by Jose Aldemar Alvarez Valencia on April 19, 2011 at 1:22pm

Daniel,

Some of the things you mention here are true. Maybe the theory of Learning Styles (LS) has lost credibility but still we learn in different ways and we tend to foreground some ways to learn more than others. I don't know how much LS theory has been revised but it is clear that the  type of learner that served as a basis for the elaboration of this theory is not the same. Digital literacies have brought about a new learner; a multimodal learner that does not always break down learning processes into different channels of reception, as LS seems to do. Current learner's learning styles are more integrative  since communication has become more complex and meaning-making requires various modes of communication to be working at the same time, e.g. visual, verbal, auditory modes, among others. Students have more exposition to all sources of stimuli, thus their learning strategies do not rely on one  principal ‘intelligence’ (to use Gardner’s term), instead their learning may rely on multiple LS with similar levels of participation and relevance. You make an important point when suggesting that what “teachers want students to learn is based on meaning” not “particularly auditory or kinesthetic”. I agree that meaning-making is at the center of any literacy practice, however I differ from your inference that teachers don’t want student to learn “auditory or kinesthetic”. I don’t  think teachers are teaching these styles, my take has always been that teachers use them to teach or inform some pedagogical decisions.  The use of activities that realize any type of LS is intended to trigger students’ capacity for meaning making. Thus we would not say that students are visual learners because they favor certain mode of learning style rather we should say that they are better meaning-makers when exposed to certain activities or materials. Since the use of the term LS is becoming so tricky we may even start  saying that our students are better meaning-makers when their learning is mediated by the affordances of visual or auditory materials, so to speak. I think learning and teaching should be multimodal and seen as fragmented as it has been seen so far. The core of the matter should be how students make-meaning as the first step leading to learning, consequently we should generate teaching/learning environments that account for the multimodal nature of meaning-making.

Comment by Jason Bednar on March 17, 2011 at 2:10pm

Karen, I do think there is a difference between learning and engaging. I agree that we need to vary student activities, but I don't have any research to refute this video's point.

Comment by Brian Thomas on February 3, 2011 at 9:46am

I work for a social studies company called TCI.  We are known for creating programs that teach to the multiple intelligences.  I think the point, which Gardner would reinforce, is that all people have intelligence.  Learning styles might be better described as strengths (as Dr. Willingham points out).  What's the instructional implication?  To me, it's that a good lesson includes a good mix of learning techniques.  Ideally, a teacher would like to include sound, movement, sight, interaction, and introspection in each lesson.  Since every student has a strength and weak areas, a teacher should include as many as practical to reinforce the strengths and buffet the weak.  At TCI (www.teachtci.com) we build all of our lessons exactly that way.  To see how our approach happens in a lesson, watch this quick video from our 4th grade program: http://www.teachtci.com/programs/elementary/ssa-regions-of-our-coun...

Comment by Dr. David D. Timony on August 20, 2010 at 8:24pm

Well presented. You will always get an argument that goes something like this: "I think that you may be right but I know someone who..." Wait until they find out that their pets don't really "love" them like they think they do. Boo hoo.

Comment by Victor Hugo Rojas B. on August 18, 2010 at 1:07am

I posted a short article on Daniel T. Willingham's video. You may read it at my blog. Hope it encourages you to continue debating on this controversial topic.

Comment by Karen Duncan on April 15, 2010 at 1:32pm

You may have some valid points, but I do know that children have learning strengths and need to be taught at least part of the time through that channel or they will not be as engaged as a learner.