The Myth of 'Learning Styles' • Hacker News Board

Re: The Myth of 'Learning Styles'

#61

Post by j10sanders » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:03 PM UTC

innocentoldguy wrote: post #17

npudar wrote: post #4

Around 20 years ago, I met Dawna Markova at a conference where she spoke about the work she had done in learning styles. My recollection is that the Visual, Auditory and Kinesthetic forms was not about how you "learn", but rather on how you stay "focused". Researchers found that there were three brianwave patterns that corresponded to your level of focus. For me, Visual stimuli kept me focused. Auditory stimuli pract…

I agree with your comment on being "focused." In analyzing my own learning preferences, I found it is much easier for me to stay focused if I can speed my way through something. Speed is the key for me, not the format. For example, if I have the choice to learn the same information via a video or book, I'd opt for the book because I know I can read a lot quicker than the person in the video is going to speak. This he…

I highly doubt you absorb much at 4-5x speed. 3x speed is very fast -- if the speaker talks quickly, it's borderline unintelligible.

Re: The Myth of 'Learning Styles'

#62

Post by dmix » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:40 PM UTC

mattferderer wrote: post #55

turingcompeteme wrote: post #40

My SO teaches elementary math, and we've had a few discussions about this. When teaching a new concept, say the area of a parallelogram, she will present the concept in multiple different ways: - Give printouts of parallelograms on graph paper, so the students can count the number of squares in a parallelogram. Also give them scissors and see what happens. - Give students two triangles and a square (which they know h…

I strongly agree in presenting a topic in a variety of ways since being able to relate new information to information already known is a major key to learning new concepts. The more ways a topic is presented, the better chance a person's brain can relate it to something already known. I have a strong assumption that when many people hear "learning styles", they assume it to this instead of auditory vs visual.

> I have a strong assumption that when many people hear "learning styles", they assume it to this instead of auditory vs visual.

Or the assume each individual only benefits from one in all situations (being half awake, interested in the subject, etc, etc). Which is a ridiculous assumption once you really think about it.

Re: The Myth of 'Learning Styles'

#63

Post by eeZah7Ux » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:40 PM UTC

VyseofArcadia wrote: post #3

If I had a nickel every time a student came up to me and said, "I'm an x learner and your class is very y," I'd have a lot of nickels. Every single time what they really mean is, "I'm doing terrible in your class, and even though it's probably my attitude or study habits or preparedness, I'm going to blame you."

Of course people differ in the way they learn and process information - but the division between visual/auditory/kinestetic is silly as claiming that someone learns better on a Tuesday because it was born on that day.

Re: The Myth of 'Learning Styles'

#64

Post by kolpa » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:49 PM UTC

lr4444lr wrote: post #44

dbatten wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point is well made, but it's amusing that you use "proven phonics methods" as an example of something that's obviously the best way to learn something... Apparently, there's very heated debate on that subject. (News to me, as of a couple months ago.) https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1997/11/the-rea...

My wife is a reading instructor. I myself was a licensed teacher in a former life. Phonics is not the totality of reading education, but it's definitely core and dominant. The article you cite speaks to a political controversy, not a pedagogical debate backed by conflicting data. Point me to the body of research on whole-language or some other approach as the dominant way to teach reading (basic reading to early prim…

I can't point you at research, but I can point you at a child who has learned reading through whole language and who emotionally resists any attempt to "sound out" words. If you spend time with ~5 year olds, I expect you'll met some who have started learning to read before they've joined kindergarten and started learning phonics.

Re: The Myth of 'Learning Styles'

#65

Post by tzs » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:58 PM UTC

lr4444lr wrote: post #26

Every time someone someone tries to sell me on this tired idea, I ask them: if you had to teach someone the difference between different bird calls, e.g. that of the robin vs. the sparrow, and you're told that person is a "visual learner", do you mean to tell me you'd opt to show them the oscilloscope representation of the sound wave that each bird makes rather than playing them an actual recording of each call? It's…

> Every time someone someone tries to sell me on this tired idea, I ask them: if you had to teach someone the difference between different bird calls, e.g. that of the robin vs. the sparrow, and you're told that person is a "visual learner", do you mean to tell me you'd opt to show them the oscilloscope representation of the sound wave that each bird makes rather than playing them an actual recording of each call?

(Note: I'm explicitly not taking in this comment any position on whether or not there is anything to this "learning styles" stuff)

That doesn't seem to actually be an argument against learning styles. Learning to recognize bird calls by ear is an inherently aural task. Of course everyone will learn it best by listening to bird calls.

I don't think anyone arguing for different learning styles claims that for any given person there is one style that is best for everything they try to learn regardless of the demands of the task they are trying to learn. I think they are claiming that when a task can be learned in different ways, some people will do better with one way then another.

Re: The Myth of 'Learning Styles'

#66

Post by mygo » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 11:02 PM UTC

mattferderer wrote: post #55

turingcompeteme wrote: post #40

My SO teaches elementary math, and we've had a few discussions about this. When teaching a new concept, say the area of a parallelogram, she will present the concept in multiple different ways: - Give printouts of parallelograms on graph paper, so the students can count the number of squares in a parallelogram. Also give them scissors and see what happens. - Give students two triangles and a square (which they know h…

I strongly agree in presenting a topic in a variety of ways since being able to relate new information to information already known is a major key to learning new concepts. The more ways a topic is presented, the better chance a person's brain can relate it to something already known. I have a strong assumption that when many people hear "learning styles", they assume it to this instead of auditory vs visual.

> The more ways a topic is presented, the better chance a person's brain can relate it to something already known.

Well there’s that, but it also goes further. The more ways a topic is presented, the more context there is for the learner to see how those things relate to each other. Give me both a formula and a graph and I will be able to use them together to better understand the concept. They reinforce each other.

Re: The Myth of 'Learning Styles'

#67

Post by ilitirit » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 11:07 PM UTC

I've never really thought about "learning styles" in this way. For me, it has more to do with nurture than nature (i.e. culture, upbringing, environment etc) than something inherent. I recall a talk on "systems thinking" and how certain tribes in Africa (? - I don't recall exactly) fared very poorly on certain Western tests that required them to group certain objects together. It turns out that due to their culture they thought of things in terms of their roles in a system, rather than classifications that may seem more fundamental to us. e.g. We might group cooking utensils together, whereas they (and this is just an arbitrary example) would group the utensils, food and seeds together because their taxonomy works on a "higher" (or rather, different) level. From this, it seemed obvious to me that certain learning "styles" are better suited to developing a certain type of thinking.

So from a practical point of view, I don't think that it's a myth at all...

Re: The Myth of 'Learning Styles'

#68

Post by dlwdlw » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 11:14 PM UTC

I think the issue is more about teaching styles rather than learning styles. Teachers often only know one way to teach things and can't adapt at all to level differences. They often enjoy working MOST with the kids who ALREADY know everything due to tutors or parents.

So the kernel of truth is that different approaches are needed for different individuals but it jumped too quickly into specific archetypes.

Another kernel of truth is that everyone has the same potential but the majority flow often dienfranchises individuals who can't take advantage of the mainstream winds.

Re: The Myth of 'Learning Styles'

#69

Post by reitanqild » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 11:19 PM UTC

commandlinefan wrote: post #59

lr4444lr wrote: post #26

Every time someone someone tries to sell me on this tired idea, I ask them: if you had to teach someone the difference between different bird calls, e.g. that of the robin vs. the sparrow, and you're told that person is a "visual learner", do you mean to tell me you'd opt to show them the oscilloscope representation of the sound wave that each bird makes rather than playing them an actual recording of each call? It's…

It does seem to me that the people who argue most passionately for different learning styles also tend to be the same people whose preferred learning style is the most passive - usually "visual learners" who somehow feel like they're absorbing more by looking at it rather than actually engaging it (by, for instance, working actual problems).

> tend to be the same people whose preferred learning style is the most passive - usually "visual learners" who somehow feel like they're absorbing more by looking at it rather than actually engaging it (by, for instance, working actual problems).

Trying to link a preference for visual learning/reading with passiveness comes off as weird for me. Reading almost certainly takes more activity from the reader.

Also your idea that visual learners tries to avoid workimg real problems seems to be that you have dealt with lazy people who tried to hide between learning styles.

For me, passive listening often makes me fall asleep or zone out. When I read I'm busy, I can read at my own speed and I can effortlessly go back and reread.

(When there is a podcast I actually want to listen to I'll prefer to listen to it while doing the dishess or driving or something. Somehow that calmes my mind enough to listen.)

Re: The Myth of 'Learning Styles'

#70

Post by barry-cotter » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 11:23 PM UTC

nategri wrote: post #2

Since it's an identity thing, I'm guessing people are not going to want to let this one go. Just like they won't let go of their identity as a Meyers-Briggs I-N-T-whatever-the-hell, even though there's zero evidence for it as a meaningful framework.

There’s plenty of evidence for it as a meaningful framework, it’s just very, very far from the best test psychometricians can design. All four MBTI components correlate with a Big Five component at an r squared between 0.49 and 0.74. There’s nothing corresponding to neuroticism.

Much better than astrology, much worse than a test designed and validated by psychometricians.