Learning styles: Possibly hooey, certainly unproven
Very interesting article by Patti Neighmond at NPR:
We’ve all heard the theory that some students are visual learners, while others are auditory learners. And still other kids learn best when lessons involve movement.
But should teachers target instruction based on perceptions of students’ strengths? Several psychologists say education could use some “evidence-based” teaching techniques, not unlike the way doctors try to use “evidence-based medicine.”
Psychologist Dan Willingham at the University of Virginia, who studies how our brains learn, says teachers should not tailor instruction to different kinds of learners. He says we’re on more equal footing than we may think when it comes to how our brains learn. And it’s a mistake to assume students will respond and remember information better depending on how it’s presented.
For example, . . .
Continue reading. He does mention some things that have actually been proven to work.
I never believed any of that nonsense when I was exposed to it in my studies. Gardner’s multiple intelligence theory seemed to me like a lot of feel-good baloney designed to help us pretend that seeming intellectual disparities between individuals is illusory. Now instead of being saying Johnny has below average intelligence but is a hell of a football player we can say Johnny has a high degree of “kinesthetic intelligence.” When you take a term like intelligence and make it mean everything, pretty soon it means nothing.
scottfeldstein
4 September 2011 at 1:49 pm
He may have taken it too far, but there does seem to be a significant difference between someone who works well with their hands and someone who’s all thumbs, or someone who’s a skilled athlete and someone who’s simply poorly coordinated. Some of the difference is experience and practice, but I’m willing to believe that it’s more than that. So what do you call these areas of excellence (verbal, musical, spatial, kinesthetic, etc.)? “Intelligence” was an try, but perhaps we should simply stick with “gifts”. “Genius” was popular for a while (“she has a musical genius”) but you don’t see it much any more.
LeisureGuy
4 September 2011 at 2:50 pm
I just think it makes sense to let, say, athletic ability be a different thing that intellectual ability. I admit that human abilities exist on one, large continuum and that the walls we put up between them are placed somewhat arbitrarily. But there is still great utility in making those distinctions. Being an olympic gymnast is an amazing thing in itself. It gains nothing by being called “intelligence.” Doing so smacks of the worst kind of every-kid-gets-a-trophy political correctness. And it further dilutes the meaning of the word. When a word literally covers the entire scope of human endeavor it becomes impossible to say what it is not. And if you can’t say what something isn’t, you have lost the ability to say what it is. It becomes meaningless.
scottfeldstein
5 September 2011 at 7:30 am
Well, we’ve certainly been able to make do with “gifts”, “genius”, “talent”, and the like, so “intelligence” for the same sort of ability in a specific area of endeavor (music, physical dexterity and coordination, taste, and so on). Indeed, as I write that, I see that abilities slop over: a gift for a music and a gift of physical dexterity and coordination combine for the guitar player, for example.
LeisureGuy
5 September 2011 at 7:40 am