Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion NYT: "Learning styles" probably don't exist

Good article. Maybe in our lifetime things like "multiple intelligences" will be debunked to the point of falling completely out of favor with the public, and new unsupported theories will be given a harder look before whole sale (strange forum bug won't let me type that word without the space) acceptance. Other possible should-be-discredited ideas-- if I had to guess, based on my layperson's prior readings-- include overexcitabilities, left-brain/right-brain learning, etc.

On the other hand, the article is poorly written in some ways. I can see how it could mislead someone into thinking that students don't have any differences in the way they learn, ever, even in the case of some learning disabilities. I think that the article could have done a better job of defining its use of "learning style".

EDIT: I guess the linked article abstract defines things well enough. It also notes that "given the lack of methodologically sound studies of learning styles, it would be an error to conclude that all possible versions of learning styles have been tested and found wanting; many have simply not been tested at all".

I kind of liked the idea that forgetting what you've learned and then relearning it is the best way to learn stuff. I've said the same thing over the years. Well I said it's quicker to relearn something than to bother to try to remember it. My grandmother described it as kids know something one day and they don't the next because it's no longer accessible in the front of their mind. Everything they've learned is still in there somewhere and they'll get back to it sooner or later. This article just described it like, "no one knows for sure why. The idea is that forgetting is the friend of learning. It may be that the brain when it revisits the material at a later time has to relearn some of what has been absorbed before adding new stuff. And that process is re-inforcing. When you forget something it allows you to relearn and do so more effectively the next time you see it."

I Agree. And they said it more clearly than me. That's probably why they got the job at the NY Times.

Looking at the abstract of one article cited, it isn't clear to me whether they reviewed Silverman's work.

In any event, no article can convince me that my ds7 would have done as well in a traditional sit-and-listen classroom in the younger grades as he has in his current classroom (montessori). He has slow processing speed and possibly some sort of auditory issue, the upshot of which is that he'd miss a whole lot of teaching in a traditional classroom.

My concern is that a blanket statement that learning styles don't matter may be enough to convince a lazy teacher that it doesn't matter how they teach. I agree that the articles could have been worded more clearly - both the journal abstract and the NYT article.

(Moreover, I'm not familiar with the journal "Psychological Science in the Public Interest" and whether they might have an angle, so to speak). While I might like to read more about the study-environment stuff, I question the extent to which research of the normal population is applicable to my kids, who seem to be anything but.