Gifted Bulletin Board

Welcome to the Gifted Issues Discussion Forum.

We invite you to share your experiences and to post information about advocacy, research and other gifted education issues on this free public discussion forum.
CLICK HERE to Log In. Click here for the Board Rules.

Links


Learn about Davidson Academy Online - for profoundly gifted students living anywhere in the U.S. & Canada.

The Davidson Institute is a national nonprofit dedicated to supporting profoundly gifted students through the following programs:

  • Fellows Scholarship
  • Young Scholars
  • Davidson Academy
  • THINK Summer Institute

  • Subscribe to the Davidson Institute's eNews-Update Newsletter >

    Free Gifted Resources & Guides >

    Who's Online Now
    0 members (), 196 guests, and 25 robots.
    Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
    Newest Members
    streble, DeliciousPizza, prominentdigitiz, parentologyco, Smartlady60
    11,413 Registered Users
    March
    S M T W T F S
    1 2
    3 4 5 6 7 8 9
    10 11 12 13 14 15 16
    17 18 19 20 21 22 23
    24 25 26 27 28 29 30
    31
    Previous Thread
    Next Thread
    Print Thread
    Page 2 of 2 1 2
    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,244
    Likes: 1
    I
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    I
    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,244
    Likes: 1
    Three thoughts:

    1) Conceptually
    On the one hand, we have a person's stated preference, when a person has a preference. (By analogy, a person might state a preference for natural fibers, such as wool.)

    On another hand, we have others developing assessment tools to detect a preference when a person may be unaware of having a preference. (By analogy, a person might state no known preference for natural or man-made fibers, then might answer questions on a brief survey assessment tool, which subsequently indicates s/he has slight a preference for synthetic fibers such as polar fleece fabric.)

    Thirdly, we have individuals assessing whether the preference (either known/stated or unknown/detected by assessment tool) translates to measurable efficiency/efficacy in their learning. (By analogy, individuals might spend time outdoors in cold weather, wearing garments of wool, of polar fleece, and of blended fibers... then be told that each garment resulted in them being equally warm. This revealed result would not negate the individual's fiber preference, if the individual had a fiber preference.)

    Similarly, an individual might prefer wearing particular colors, and yet might provide equally engaging presentations regardless of whether s/he was wearing preferred colors, or non-preferred colors.

    There is something to be said for the affective side, for the whole person, for respecting that individuals have preferences.

    2) About the Meta-Analysis
    Some may say that a shortcoming of the study went unnoticed. This was described as:
    Originally Posted by blog post
    ... current (pre-1987) methods used to sort students into visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learners do not adequately do so. Kavale and Forness found that many of the studies reported a large number of cases where “a subject not selected for a modality group actually scored higher than a subject selected on the bases of a modality strength.” This number was 1 in 5 students across all modalities (V, A, and K) and was 1 in 4 students for the kinesthetic group specifically. If these students really are being sorted according to their “learning style,” the authors argue that this is a large number of improperly sorted students. The authors conclude “… although modality assessments were presumed to differentiate subjects on the bases of modality preferences, there was, in actuality, considerable overlap between preference and non-preference groups.”
    Additionally, some may say that using a blend of modalities in the control group may confound results. Specifically, if students better absorbed information presented in their preferred modality, then a control group might consist of presenting information devoid of the preferred modality. For example, comparing the learning of a person who prefers auditory information, under the circumstances of auditory presentation as compared/contrasted with solely visual/kinesthetic learning experiences.

    3) Visual/Spatial learners and wiggly kids
    If we set aside learning styles, how do we explain, categorize, label, relate to, and support visual-spatial learners?
    If we set aside learning styles, how do we explain, categorize, label, relate to, and support wiggly (kinesthetic) kids?
    Do we pathologize them?

    Joined: Sep 2007
    Posts: 3,296
    Val Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    Joined: Sep 2007
    Posts: 3,296
    Originally Posted by indigo
    3) Visual/Spatial learners and wiggly kids
    If we set aside learning styles, how do we explain, categorize, label, relate to, and support visual-spatial learners?
    If we set aside learning styles, how do we explain, categorize, label, relate to, and support wiggly (kinesthetic) kids?
    Do we pathologize them?

    The point of all the research is that there is no such thing as a "visual-spatial" or "kinesthetic" learner (although wiggliness is a normal part of being a kid). People have a right to their preferences, but that doesn't mean that others (schools in this case) should pander to their beliefs, especially if their beliefs have been proven to be false.


    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,244
    Likes: 1
    I
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    I
    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,244
    Likes: 1
    Originally Posted by Val
    The point of all the research is that there is no such thing as a "visual-spatial" or "kinesthetic" learner (although wiggliness is a normal part of being a kid). People have a right to their preferences, but that doesn't mean that others (schools in this case) should pander to their beliefs, especially if their beliefs have been proven to be false.
    Some may say there is visual-spatial ability? IQ subtests measure whether this is a relative strength or relative weakness? Possibly this dissertation from UCONN and this Visual-Spatial website explain better.

    Joined: Aug 2014
    Posts: 149
    I
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    I
    Joined: Aug 2014
    Posts: 149
    To me there are two questions: whether a particular learning style exists and how the said learning style should be taught are to very distinctly different questions, and I will comment on the existences first.

    It is clear that different people learn different types of skills with different levels of ease. From an analysis point of view if such a test exists to differentiate individuals as being relatively better at one set of tasks that are human defined to be visual spatial tasks with a high level of confidence then it should follow that that this human defined category can be said to exist. Let's make it clear it makes no difference what those tasks are, or how they might relate to the brain or body. Just the answered question: can two populations be categorized as having different relative comparative strengths with some level of confidence. If a natural phenomenon is shown to be the causal agent it does strengthen the label, but it is not required in order to state that such a category can exist. It seems clear that if one chooses the right set of tasks to be the label for visual learner then certainly the label can be allowed to exist because certainly we can define a test that can with a high level of confidence show that some people are better able to learn certain types of information than others.

    As for dirty data, the fact that many individuals do not cleanly fit within a category is not important. I think anybody who regularly works with real world data should be quite comfortable with blurry decision boundaries. blurry decision boundaries do not give cause for saying the category does not exist. Please understand it is my intention to pretend that I am creating this term despite its previous existence. It is to show that such a term has the right to exist assuming it is defined properly and can be tested.

    Second, the effectiveness of teaching in a particular style. This I believe is a truly hard problem to answer. There are many reasons this is hard to answer, but here is one that jumps out to me:
    Let's say that everybody does agree with my logic that one should be able to create a label called visual spatial. My same logic combined with just how different everybody seems to be from one another should allow the creation of a truly large number of categories that we can name. Some teaching strategies that might seem appropriate for the visual spatial learner might be totally inappropriate for some of these other categories. It is also very likely that these other categories are not all mutually exclusive. meaning person "A" might be a visual spatial person which should do well with tactic "B", but person "A" might also be a DoDoDah person who performs poorly with tactic "B".

    Now, that I have stated in my own way what is probably obvious to most people... that people are complicated. Let me say that I do believe that if very well designed studies were conducted to mate up different learning styles to different types of learners, and if there was a way to implement these categories efficiently it probably would lead to a better overall learning experience. However herding cats is a hard thing to do as well.


    Last edited by it_is_2day; 03/01/15 03:45 PM.
    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,244
    Likes: 1
    I
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    I
    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,244
    Likes: 1
    Originally Posted by it_is_2day
    It is also very likely that these other categories are not all mutually exclusive. meaning person "A" might be a visual spatial person which should do well with tactic "B", but person "A" might also be a DoDoDah person who performs poorly with tactic "B".
    DoDoDah indeed! smile

    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    A
    aeh Offline
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    You may find this brief summary of a/the leading contemporary model of intelligence to be of value:

    http://www.iapsych.com/chcv2.pdf

    Though many of the lower order abilities are more conceptual than empirical, the broad abilities in this modified Cattell-Horn-Carroll model, in the top row, are largely supported by factor analytic research.

    Another leading theory is Robert Sternberg's triarchic/successful intelligence (there is a much larger body of research, but this one is freely downloadable):

    http://www.psicorip.org/Resumos/PerP/RIP/RIP036a0/RIP03921.pdf

    Some data supports this, mainly that students identified as having a preference for one of the three domains of intelligence (analytical, practical, creative) are more successful when instruction in a skill or concept includes their preferred domain for at least one component of the instructional set.


    ...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,181
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,181
    Right-- but the inherent difficulty in assessing the results in such studies are that it is effectively impossible to tease apart motivation as part and parcel of the resultant effectiveness (as measured).



    So if I like the color yellow, for example, I might be more inclined to pay attention to a document which is printed on yellow paper. It might have very little to do with the content or the writing style.

    Confounding variables. Now, excellent experimental design accommodates that by using larger samples and well-designed controls which are "sham" treated in one way or another. Fancy stats ensue-- but I'm a little suspicious of a study that never even bothers to ask that kind of question-- whether or no the study subjects' own perceptions and biases might be influencing the resultant data in some way, I mean.

    This is what I find maddening-- while I agree, AEH, that such a construct perhaps logically SHOULD exist, it is still predicated on that particular "domain" (for lack of a better term) in measures of intelligence-- which are merely models, and probably proxies (and imperfect ones at that) of what it is that they attempt to codify.

    It's also the case that in studies where test subjects have been repeatedly evaluated, their classifications CHANGE. This is also true of Myers-Briggs, btw; there is a reason I mentioned that one.

    So whatever it is that this tool is identifying-- it's not stable. Maybe it's even somewhat random.

    Is the trait for which it is a proxy even real?

    Nobody seems to know for sure. Not really. Yes, scores on individual subtests of cognitive ability seem to be stable, but that doesn't mean that those subtests are measuring what we hope that they are measuring. Entirely possible that they actually represent something else, which also happens to be a stable characteristic.

    The really interesting underlying issue in my estimation is that people's preferences and perceptions may be wildly inaccurate in the first place, and that a great many individuals may THINK that they "learn best" in one way-- but can be entirely wrong about that.

    I've been amused by students who have steadfastly maintained that they "prefer auditory" learning, yet they can recall what they do on homework problems and have excellent recall of material in a course text, but almost no recall of video or live instruction.


    I've learned to just ignore whatever-it-is that people tell me about their Myers-Briggs "type" as well-- because that is another one that simply isn't stable within serial evaluations even for a single individual. I know a number of people who really, really believe in it, however. They are otherwise fairly well-educated people, too. I just smile.




    Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
    Joined: Jun 2012
    Posts: 517
    M
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    M
    Joined: Jun 2012
    Posts: 517
    as mum to a extremely visual special child, I have to say I never thought of it as a learning style so much as a personality / brain wiring trait.

    Anyway, I never could figure out which learning style I was so I agree with HK on the point that the research may or may not prove anything.

    However given that the entire NZ school system (private and public) is built around different learning styles to the point where our local HS of choice offers multiple assessment strategies based on learning styles I'm drinking the kool aid on this one.

    Joined: Dec 2012
    Posts: 2,035
    P
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    P
    Joined: Dec 2012
    Posts: 2,035
    Do you get to choose which assessment style or is it allocated based on a survey? I remember it being presented as fact though, it is one of those things that agrees with what we think we know which makes it a seductive theory.

    Eta. Wasn't dyslexia categorised as a learning preference by one of our (NZ) education experts not so long ago?

    Last edited by puffin; 03/03/15 04:21 PM.
    Page 2 of 2 1 2

    Moderated by  M-Moderator 

    Link Copied to Clipboard
    Recent Posts
    Testing with accommodations
    by aeh - 03/27/24 01:58 PM
    Quotations that resonate with gifted people
    by indigo - 03/27/24 12:38 PM
    New, and you'd think I'd have a clue...
    by astronomama - 03/24/24 06:01 AM
    For those interested in astronomy, eclipses...
    by indigo - 03/23/24 06:11 PM
    Son 2e, wide discrepancy between CogAT-Terranova
    by astronomama - 03/23/24 07:21 AM
    Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5