Comments on: The Straight Dope on Learning Styles

By: Rodney

Rodney — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 01:05:57 +0000

It might be interesting to note that research has not shown that teaching to people’s “learning styles” or “learning preferences” improves learning.
It’s true people have preferences for learning. And it’s even true that you’d best use certain presentation modes for certain subjects. For example, it’s been found that visuals are very important for learning chemistry. But it is not true that teaching students according to their preferences increases learning.
See Chapter 7 of “Why Don’t Students Like School?” by Daniel Wilingham for a detailed discussion of this topic as well as references.
And while it may be true that a theory can be useful without being true (I can’t see how though) the theory that teaching to learning styles or preferences is not useful. It just makes more work for teachers and if they believe the hypothesis is fact, they can ignore the fact that it’s not improving results.
Instead of trying to force various learning approaches onto each topic it’s best for teachers to use the modes of presentation that best fits the material and the age, maturity and life-experiences of their audience. This of course is just plain common sense.

By: Josie

Josie — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 17:09:11 +0000

The whole thing has seemed very shallow when I have been taught about it in rather micky mouse teaching courses.
The key thing for me is not visual vs auditory, it is linear vs non-linear, or words vs non-words. My Masters course which was dominated by science/engineering types gave us masses of map diagrams with little boxes and words and arrows everywhere. To me that is completely incomprehensible chaos. To understand something I need it in words- nice and linear. Another philsophy graduate on the course said that she was having difficulty with the course for the same reason, but I didn’t do a survey so I don’t know if anyone actually likes this way of recieving material. My guess is that science people may not dislike it so much, or at least be more used to it.

By: Sonia

Sonia — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:01:26 +0000

Thank you for an interesting article. I do believe that there are distinctive learning styles, but the delineations are not hard & fast or very clear. For instance, I personally tend to flip back and forth between visual and verbal methods of processing information, and probably many others do the same. When reading, I often diagram, and in drawing, often annotate.
Problems with “learning styles” seem to emerge when educators try to make one style apply to all students. I think the key is to “know thyself”. Learning is really the responsibility of the learner; and the more strategically he can tailor his approach to the subject to suit his style–whether that be visually, verbally, constructively, etc.–the more effectively he’ll learn.

By: Michael Moncur

Michael Moncur — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:52:34 +0000

Thanks for mentioning your friend Cat – I have a similar condition and it’s only thanks to the internet that I’m aware there are others like me.
I have almost no ability to visualize anything in my “mind’s eye”. Even things I’ve seen a million times are still kind of abstract in my head, although I recognize them when I see them.
Curiously, my dreams tend to be as visual as anybody’s, and there’s a period right before I fall asleep when I can consciously visualize.

By: Lilian Nattel

Lilian Nattel — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:31:20 +0000

Generally if you have children, it’s easy to see that they have different ways of learning, even though there might not be a viable system of learning styles at this point. The problem I see is that the curriculum is so broad, that a teacher doesn’t have the time to attend to children’s different learning styles. A sensory rich curriculum is wonderful, but that only addresses one aspect of learning styles, ie which senses are more engaging/developed for a particular child.

By: madnessanddreams

madnessanddreams — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:23:16 +0000

THANK YOU! Seriously, I have had to take so many quizzes to see “what kind of learner” I am and it gets rather annoying. You do get to see which set of divisions is currently in fashion at your school/with your teacher (I’ve done all four of the systems you listed above). But generally, treating the divisions like they are based on hard facts and solid division lines usually ends up an exercise in absurdity. Now if only I could explain this to the Associate Dean of my department who is just in LOVE with Convergers, Divergers, Assimilators and Accomodators and has made them a huge part of a new class on “leadership,” required of all students in my department that entered since ’06. Yay for more useless credits!