Job Discussion Forums

[johnslat]

I expect we've all heard about how students can have "different learning styles": visual, aural, kinesthetic, etc.

I have to admit, it SOUNDS plausible - but is it? What do you think?

"Developments in cognitive science have had some far reaching impacts on learning theories. For instance , Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences has its repercussions in learning styles theory. A whole new body of substantiated and scientific knowledge was subsequently produced to encapsulate the core principles undergirding the multiple intelligences theory in educational literature. New instructional methodologies emerged to account for the different learning styles of students.

No two human beings are the same and therefore the way they learn and process information is not necessarily the same. Some learn better through visual aids, others find it easy to learn when they are engaged in hands-on activities involving not only their intellectual abilities but also their body parts ( Kinestetics). At the face of it the multiple learning styles theory seems to offer a plausible explanation to the differences exhibited in students learning habits however, there is another side to the story. The graphic below from elearning infographics captures this side pretty throughly. It features 8 arguments against the multiple learning styles theory. I invite you to check them out below and share with us what you think of them. Enjoy"

http://www.educatorstechnology.com/2013/12/the-myth-of-learning-styles-debunked.html

Regards,
John

[Sashadroogie]

Dear Johnslat

Interesting post - cheers.

Have no evidence either way, except my reliable gut instinct : ) Have always felt that this area, while having a few grains of truth, was and is vastly over-emphasised on t-training courses. It is more or less up there with NLP pseudo-science in my humble opinion.


Best wishes

Sceptical Sasha

[HLJHLJ]

I did a lit review on this a little while ago, so I may be a bit out of date now. But as far as I could see there's quite a lot of evidence that most individuals have a preference for one style or another (or actually a combination of a couple of them was most common). However, there's no evidence that gearing teaching towards a preferred style improves learning. In fact, to the extent that it makes any difference at all there is a very small benefit if you use the least preferred option. But that is probably just an artefact of additional effort and in any case it was too small to be of any educational value.

I can't see the pics in the article on my phone. I'll be interested to read it later.

[fluffyhamster]

Personally I like to have every scrap of language metaphorized into animated visuals set against a lilac pink background while wearing Halloween fancy dress (Deranged Headmaster is a fave), but that's just me. I don't think my Chinese teachers would have time to do more than generally converse and work with "ordinary" texts.

[mk87]

As well as the academic side of this which is more or less accepted now I just think its obvious. I mean people learn differently, I dont really see how that is difficult to accept. The multiple intelligence theory really provided the space that we can think about this in, but I dont think its the end of the line. One of the most important roles of a teacher IMO is to be skilled in noticing these differences and dealing with them. Thats not to say that all classes should be done in a metalwork shop with an all singing all dancing cast... but I think its fairly obvious, easy and sensible to "mix it up" a bit when it comes to ways students are engaging with information. Even if just to introduce a bit of that beloved chaos back into things.

[Sashadroogie]

The part of this that I find hard to accept is that teachers are supposed to be able to teach, say, an item of vocabulary or grammar three different ways, for three types of learner. E.g. 'banana' needs to be presented with a picture for visual learners, with mimed peeling actions for kinaestheic learners, with spoken word and drilled for aural learners. Subsequent reinforcing activities are also then to be tripled up. A lot of exta work, which would be fine if there really was some sort of learning enhancement in the end. But as this article suggests, I'm not sure there is.

Then there is the thorny issue of teachers pigeonholing learners into profile types "Ali is a kinaesthetic learner, so I'll have him run around the classroom with Yuki. Sasha the visual can just read his dictionary, while I bellow 'bananas!' at Marketa and Paulo."

[fat_chris]

[smithrn1983]

[Sashadroogie]

All olfactory learners are just kulaks by another name. We didn't and don't miss them, hurumph!

[scot47]

I feel strongly that Astrology and Aromatherapy should also be included in all TEFL Training Courses.

[Sashadroogie]

But would they fly with the critical thinking brigade, Scot?

[scot47]

Electro-convulsive therapy can be used to persuade them.

[Sashadroogie]

Much more civilised than being bastinadoed.

[Guerciotti]

I believe I am a kinesthetic learner who teaches primarily aural and visual learners. I envy them as it seems easier.
It seems the article argues against attempting to assist the various learning styles by altering the instruction method rather than arguing against the learning styles themselves. They recommend tailoring the course presentation to the motivational characteristics of the students, which makes sense to me.
Just my 2c.

[fladude]

My anecdotal experience indicates that it is true to an extent. I do believe that there are visual, auditory and kinesthetic learners, or at least people who benefit from differentiated instruction. I say this in relation to myself, at least in part. I definitely fall into the auditory/kinesthetic category. When I hear things and then write it down in a notebook (hence adding a kinesthetic element), I recall the lesson quite well. However, when I simply read something or do a worksheet without having listened to a lecture first, then my recall of the material is very poor. I have noticed many of my students who fall into this same category. There are definitely kids who can listen to a lecture and participate in a discussion who recall the material even months later. At the same time, I have taught people who don't learn anything from a lecture, but who do quite well when they read the information and follow it up with an exercise, something which does not work for me at all.

That is why I like to mix things up with oral discussion, short lectures, power point presentations and reading and worksheets. That way each type of learner is given the material in a different format. Admittedly, I don't provide much support for kinesthetic learners, but I do provide them with some activity to offer them support. At the very minimum by presenting the information in different formats, I provide the students with a bit of repetition and reinforcement.

Having said that, where I believe this line of thought starts to unravel is when it is carried out to even greater extremes. For example, I have set through educational lectures about musical learners and even nature learners. When you start talking about nature learners then you are essentially losing touch with reality and have become caught up in educational theory and fad teaching techniques.