0 members (),
86
guests, and
12
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2 |
The myth of learning styles (auditory, visual, kinesthetic) continues to persist, in spite of little evidence to support the idea that students learn better when taught according to their preferred style. And, said Harold Pashler, a psychology professor at the University of California, San Diego...no compelling evidence for teaching to students’ learning styles has emerged in the years since: “There’s one or two somewhat oddball studies,” he said, “but there’s a number of new negative findings that are more substantial.” Depressing: In a 2011 study, Daniel H. Robinson...found that only 18 percent of recommendations in teacher-education textbooks were based on intervention studies — the kind of studies, Dr. Robinson said in an interview, “that would allow you to make causal conclusions.” Sixty-four percent of the recommendations were based on secondary sources, not on primary research at all. “It was pretty discouraging,” said Dr. Robinson.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,259 Likes: 8
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,259 Likes: 8 |
The article mentions a lack of empirical evidence for learning styles. Some may wonder if lack of empirical evidence may be more a function of the ethics of experimenting on humans in regard to their education, rather than being reflective of the non-existence of preferred learning styles?
Some might say that the large body of anecdotal evidence and lived experience which seems to support that various individuals prefer learning by hearing something, or seeing something, or doing something fuels the belief that learning styles exist.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 599
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 599 |
Also it depends on your definition of "Learn".
Memorize, deep understanding of a complex subject, etc.
Certain learning tasks lend themselves to specific learning modes. Certain things are just personal preference.
Learning a list of spelling words I would think different things would work for different people.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 615
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 615 |
No ethical problem at all. You bring people into the lab and have them learn something. You don't have to go into the classroom and mess with their actual educational experience. Cognitive psychologists do this kind of research all the time (thoroughly vetted and approved by ethics review boards). Rigorously designed studies have been done, and have found no benefit from matching the learning experience to the learner's supposed learning style. Here is a review article, and here is another that goes into more technical detail. I'd be happy to share the complete papers with anyone who wants, just PM me.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513 Likes: 1 |
MegMeg, could you please post the names of the articles. I'm taken to your portal and prompted for login with no article preview. I'd be interested to read these.
What is to give light must endure burning.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
Val, my DD was actually directed by a nationally known virtual schooling organization to "complete the VARK survey about learning styles" every one of the nine years that she was enrolled with them. It was complete nonsense. For an unpacking of that beastly "tool", please see Kevin Smith's blog posts which pick apart some of the more specious claims about "learning modalities and styles." http://learningstylesevidence.blogspot.com/2012/02/paper-review-sensory-modality-used-for.htmlThe main problem, as Kevin notes in this post is that; As with the previous paper I reviewed by this author, he is not examining the existence of learning styles. The assumption has been made that they exist. His goal is to link learning styles to class performance. In his introduction, he makes the following statement: “…when teaching physiology to a diverse group of students, the most thorough and successful strategy is to present information using multiple learning styles.” Notice the choice of words here. He does not say that the most successful strategy is to present information via multiple sensory modalities or in multiple ways (which there is some research to support). Instead, the wording includes the term “learning styles.” This is a pretty strong statement to make. Is there any evidence provided for this statement? This is the major problem with a lot of work published in this area. As a scientist, this sort of thing drives me positively batty when I try to read papers written by behavioral science and education experts (er-- or so-called experts, perhaps). I've only got Princess Bride quotes to fall back upon at that point. "Associated." This word...My favorite of Kevin's posts is this one: http://learningstylesevidence.blogspot.com/2012/12/a-meta-analysis-of-vak-pre-vark.htmlto which I can only add-- Let me introduce a little thing that I'd like to call, ohhhhh, just for fun, say-- "Null Hypothesis." Because every puzzling thing EVER in this field is nicely summed by assuming that it might be that the null hypothesis is actually correct. Too bad that nobody publishing in this field ever considered that their basic assumptions (that learning styles even EXIST, or that they might make any difference in terms of learning) might simply be bogus.
Last edited by HowlerKarma; 02/28/15 09:55 AM. Reason: to add final link and note
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
Now, shall we talk about Myers-Briggs next?
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 615
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 615 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513 Likes: 1 |
What I find shocking is the fact that the meta analyses HK linked were conducted in 1987, and yet the myth of targeting different learning modalities persists in education 28 years later.
What is to give light must endure burning.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
It's the truthiness of the concept, though, not really whether or not it is real. Ergo, additional evidence is no more important than it is to religious observance. The entire construct is belief-based to begin with.
I'd also argue that this is a shining example of something else that I've noted to be fairly endemic in education (as a field, I mean):
if you WANT it to be true, just believe it hard enough. Voila!
Please note that this also explains why some educators truly believe that acceleration is harmful (in spite of reams of decent quality evidence to suggest that at worst, it is no MORE harmful than doing nothing), and the like.
So many, many studies in the field are so poorly constructed that they are more or less meaningless, and there is also a very hefty dose of engineering experimental design to generate the desired outcomes. Add in a hefty dose of chutzpah (at least I think that's what it is... though maybe it's ignorance meets hubris?) and you get pronouncements that literally make NO SENSE in light of the data in the study.
I've actually seen classroom educators read such a study and nod sagely while pronouncing that said publication "supports the classroom practices*" that they have been using with "good impact** on learning."
Perception as reality, as my DH would say.
* Bogus classroom practices, at least if the data in front of them in the publication is reliable, that is.
** How this is measured isn't ever quite clear either-- I guess they FEEL that students are, er, well-- better somehow. It makes them feel effective.
Elementary educators tend to be very predominantly of this type.
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|