Job Discussion Forums

[Sashadroogie]

Just found this intriguing article. Justifies bumping up this thread, I hope.

http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/never-forget-learning-styles-are-complete-arse/

[gaijinalways]

Sasha,

It sounds like you haven't read up on that theory (Linguitic Relativity theory and/or Moderate Whorf theory). And no, it's not my pet theory, it's a theory supported by many linguists (you not being one of them). As I said earlier please do the reading, then we can try and discuss it.

Interesting link though. Learning styles do vary a lot, regardless of the research that says they don't. But what else is new; research that supports that something doesn't exist that our students 'seem to be showing' when they are learning.

[scot47]

Looking at earlier posts here I see that someone says that his native language has no direct word for no. The same is true of Classical Latin - at least the variety I was taught in Scotland from 1959-1964.

"Yes" was "Ita vero" (= That is true) and for a negative you had to make a negative sentence.

I never quite figured out how all those Scottish Dominies knew how Ancient Romans spoke. Those who went to Catholic Schools were perhaps more fortunate. they were taught a variety of Italianate Latin used in modern times as the spoken language of the Vatican !

[Sashadroogie]

Dear Gaijin

I already know quite a bit about the theories you are promoting, so thanks but no thanks for your reading encouragement. However, I am still at a loss as to why you keep diverting this thread back to an area that you feel comfortable with. I'm not interested in discussing that, though. I do, however, find it interesting that 'research' seems only to be valued when it supports one claim, but not the other. What's happening there? Perhaps 'research' has a different cultural connotation?

[gaijinalways]

There is also a lot of research supporting learning styles, so it's not a matter of selective support, rather selective comprehension.

I guess a lot of it might depend on how you define learning style.

Many people use a blend of them, but people, and particularly people from particular cultural backgrounds, generally have favored learning styles (this is beginning to sound familiar...).

And no, you don't give me the impression you have read a lot on the other theories I have mentioned, certainly not recent developments. Hardly anything I promote, something that is more at a subconscious level and just surprises me that you haven't thought about it more.

Technically, as I stated before, it doesn't promote the idea of thinking in any language, more that cultural conditions which are generally tied to language (there are exceptions, where people learn languages but don't adopt the culture such as students often do or cases where people never visit the country where the language is used) affect thinking.

Theories evolve, in case you haven't noticed , whether we want them to or not.

[gaijinalways]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/daniel-willingham/willingham-reading-is-not-a-sk.html

I think Willingham likes to make controversial statements, though his conclusions in the article don't quite match the title of it.

[Sashadroogie]

Exactly how much condescension is supposed to make me come around to your 'evolved' theories, Gaijin?

[gaijinalways]

Sashadroogie posted