Students are not hard-wired to learn in different ways
theconversation.com
Students are not hard-wired to learn in different ways
1–10 of 17 posts
Re: Students are not hard-wired to learn in different ways
#2If you start to look at the "different ways" claims, they fall apart pretty quickly with basic logic.
One of the most common claims I hear is that someone is a "visual" learner.
If that were true, wouldn't it also mean that we're leaving kids behind that learn through taste? What if I'm an olfactory genius and I should be learning maths through scent?
Re: Students are not hard-wired to learn in different ways
#3Two I know of, Sternberg's and Gardner's, both have no real evidence for. I think it's part of the difficulty when you try to come up with a model of learning that ignores the g-factor.
Re: Students are not hard-wired to learn in different ways
#4If you start to look at the "different ways" claims, they fall apart pretty quickly with basic logic. One of the most common claims I hear is that someone is a "visual" learner. If that were true, wouldn't it also mean that we're leaving kids behind that learn through taste? What if I'm an olfactory genius and I should be learning maths through scent?
>One of the most common claims I hear is that someone is a "visual" learner. If that were true, wouldn't it also mean that we're leaving kids behind that learn through taste?
How does that follow at all? I fail to see any logic here, let alone "basic" logic.
Re: Students are not hard-wired to learn in different ways
#5I'm not sure I agree.
In sports some people can watch a new technique and instantly be able to copy the movements. Other people have to be guided through each step. It's a combination of visual data and proprioception.
Personally, if if calculations come up conversationally, I have to see the numbers, I can't process calculations aurally.
I also remember names better if I can see them in print.
Re: Students are not hard-wired to learn in different ways
#6I'm not sure I agree.
In sports some people can watch a new technique and instantly be able to copy the movements. Other people have to be guided through each step.
Personally, if I'm if calculations come up conversationally, I have to see the numbers, I can't process calculations aurally.
I also remember names better if I can see them in print.
Re: Students are not hard-wired to learn in different ways
#7If you start to look at the "different ways" claims, they fall apart pretty quickly with basic logic. One of the most common claims I hear is that someone is a "visual" learner. If that were true, wouldn't it also mean that we're leaving kids behind that learn through taste? What if I'm an olfactory genius and I should be learning maths through scent?
>One of the most common claims I hear is that someone is a "visual" learner. If that were true, wouldn't it also mean that we're leaving kids behind that learn through taste? How does that follow at all? I fail to see any logic here, let alone "basic" logic.
Try smelling the logic.
Re: Students are not hard-wired to learn in different ways
#8I'm not sure I agree. In sports some people can watch a new technique and instantly be able to copy the movements. Other people have to be guided through each step. It's a combination of visual data and proprioception. Personally, if if calculations come up conversationally, I have to see the numbers, I can't process calculations aurally. I also remember names better if I can see them in print.
About the math: I don't think it's just you. I'm pretty sure math is easier for everyone when visualised. So there's no need to introduce a theory of "learning styles" - it's just that some subjects are better understood using one sense, period.
Re: Students are not hard-wired to learn in different ways
#9> If learning styles exist at all, these are not "hard wired" and are at most simply preferences.
What does it mean for a learning style to be simply a preference?
I would think that such a preference (for, say, visual rather than text-based descriptions of a geometric concept) would be founded on something. And I suspect the "something" is that it's easier to understand.
Yet even if we all agree that it's just a preference, not something that's "hard-wired," does that really require a practical shift in how we teach things? Should we not defer to people's learning preferences, even if they are just preferences?
Re: Students are not hard-wired to learn in different ways
#10I find, through personal experience, that the most important way to teach differently to students is to build upon what each student already knows & their interests outside of the subject.
For example, a student who loves football might learn math better by creating games that incorporate popular players' & teams' stats. It is more likely to keep them interested which seems to be at least half the battle. It also shows them how learning this is useful in an area they're already interested in. A minor benefit, if you can truly create unique content for each student, you make cheating more difficult.
Through individualized content, students can also progress at their own rate. I find these methods of learning to be much more important than classifying things as "visual" or some other method.
This was always my understanding of why it is important for students to be taught in different ways.