Comments on: Learning Styles do not exist (according to Dan Willingham)

By: Travis A. Wittwer

Travis A. Wittwer — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 04:27:56 +0000

Check out this post on the same topic.
http://circle-time.blogspot.com/2008/09/gladwell-vs-willingham-cage-match.html
What do you think?

By: Travis A. Wittwer

Travis A. Wittwer — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 04:26:07 +0000

Learning Styles. Take it or leave it. Believe it or not. Teaching is teaching. A teacher can be great and great by designing their craft through the paradigm of learning styles. A teacher can teach to the needs of a student, regardless of learning styles.

However, one thing that I would caution against is the thinking that learning styles define the students. That the student is just the one, or a few and incapable of using the other styles.

I had some former students visit me one day after school and tell me that they did a survey in class and found out their learning styles. One student said she was visual and that all of her learning should be visual. I hope this was not the intention of the teacher. True, if you hold to the belief of learning styles, you will have a dominant one (mine would be visual), but that does not mean that you cannot use the others or that the others will not work on you.

In fact, if the others do work, then they are simply compliments to the one main one. In that way, they are all avenues to learning and should not be delineate, boxed, given a nice name, and pushed as the one way.

Hmmm.

By: Dan Willingham

Dan Willingham — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:25:37 +0000

Hi, kind of late with this comment, but in response to Karen’s comment, I used examples that would be quick to describe and easy to understand in the video, but in the real research studies researchers tried to make materials as similar to classroom materials as possible.

By: Let’s Use Common Sense on Learning Styles at Education for the Aughts - American School Issues and Analysis

Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:08:37 +0000

[...] Crucial Thought [...]

By: H.

H. — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:17:33 +0000

Glad to see these distinctions made. I've wondered, earlier, about whether learning styles proponents are referring to the mode of input or to the character of the information, whether a "visual learner" is one who processes any kind of information best if the information is fed through the eye, so to speak, or whether a visual learner is one for whom intrinsically visual information (such as a graph, a picture) is much more accessible than other forms of the same information. If a blind person studies a map by tactile means, the person is studying essentially visual information kinaesthetically - but if this blind person prefers the map to a verbal description of which cities are closer to which, is she then a visual rather then a verbal learner? The learning styles concept is, I think, very unclear and ambiguous.

By: Fran

Fran — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:34:12 +0000

I have always questioned the theory of “visual” vs. “auditory” (and/or “kinesthetic”) but have accepted the theory – as has most of the population, according to the video.

In fact, I have even labeled myself as a visual learner – but I know that I also need hands-on experience with some things that I am trying to learn (how to create spreadsheets in Excel, for example).

If nothing else, this video is making me rethink whether I am a visual learner

I have always loved analogies – because the comparison helps me understand new concepts in relation to other concepts I know. Or it gets me to consider new ways to think of a known (to me) concept.

Students do need variety in the ways that information is presented. So, if as Barbara said, the whole learning styles theory has encouraged teachers to find new ways to present material, then it has helped teaching in general.

I strongly believe, though, that actual hands on experience with concepts is the best way to ensure understanding. (Which is why we always include practice with material before testing.)

By: Tim V

Tim V — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:34:38 +0000

So does that mean that since I learned about this concept through a YouTube video that I am a visual learner?

By: Karen Janowski

Karen Janowski — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:46:50 +0000

Two things struck me as I watched this video once, I probably should watch it at least once more.

One, he seems to be talking specifically about learning factual, rote information, that requires rote memorization. Is that the “learning” we are promoting in our classrooms?

Two, his final conclusion will be used to continue perpetuating the “one size fits all” approach which does NOT benefit students.

Wonder what he would say about Universal Design for Learning which advocates using multiple methods of engagement, representation and expression in our classrooms? (http://cast.org/)

By: Barbara

Barbara — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:17:44 +0000

In the interest of accurate science I get the point and accept that the absolutes pointed to by learning theories are not sound conclusions. Yes, good teaching is good teaching…However I think that learning theories have served a purpose. They have helped us to find a wider variety of techniques for presenting material and encouraged us to provide the “one more example”.

Teaching is more dynamic, more diverse and I think more interesting because we have encountered this idea. I also do not think that many teachers hold to the absolutes that the ‘science” may suggest. We expect and encourage the use of all senses by all students.

So my next question is what does the science say about multi-modal learning?