The myth of learning styles.

[Reya]

[Seeker]

I think he makes some valid points in his argument against learning styles, but then he made points that support them as well. Of course, each person uses all their senses gain understanding, but some children, for example, need to hear the music to copy how it is played and others can read music to play it better and regardless of what learning style a child has he must move to play the music. They use all the learning styles, but one is going to be the strongest in helping the child to learn the music.

 

I would have to say that I disagree with his closing statement. A good teacher is a good teacher, but the best teachers actually reach a child and if the child gains understanding quicker and better using one style more heavily then the teacher has modified the approach for that child, or taught to his learning style.

 

The argument he had as to why people believe the theory about learning style works for any theory. If you believe a theory, you try to fit everything into that theory and that is how science has always worked. A theory is a theory until it is proven untrue. What I see is another theory that does not disprove the learning styles theories, but another theory that just does not support them.

Edited October 21, 2009 by Seeker
typo

[Laura Corin]

Of course, each person uses all their senses gain understanding, but some children, for example, need to hear the music to copy how it is played and others can read music to play it better and regardless of what learning style a child has he must move to play the music. They use all the learning styles, but one is going to be the strongest in helping the child to learn the music.

 

 

He learned no maths at all, whilst his best friend learned tons. The teacher admitted to me that he hadn't quite worked out how to teach Calvin maths, as he learned nothing through his hands - as far as Calvin was concerned, he was just playing with blocks. The teacher suggested that I might like to teach him borrowing and carrying myself, using pencil and paper, as the Montessori manipulatives were teaching him nothing.

 

Calvin is a pretty extreme case - as a toddler he used to sit in the middle of the floor saying, 'What's that?' rather than investigating with his hands. It really doesn't work to use 'a variety of methods' with him, as he will only learn by listening or reading.

 

Laura

[katemary63]

Very interesting!

[EKS]

Thanks Reya!

[Reya]

He learned no maths at all, whilst his best friend learned tons. The teacher admitted to me that he hadn't quite worked out how to teach Calvin maths, as he learned nothing through his hands - as far as Calvin was concerned, he was just playing with blocks. The teacher suggested that I might like to teach him borrowing and carrying myself, using pencil and paper, as the Montessori manipulatives were teaching him nothing.

 

Calvin is a pretty extreme case - as a toddler he used to sit in the middle of the floor saying, 'What's that?' rather than investigating with his hands. It really doesn't work to use 'a variety of methods' with him, as he will only learn by listening or reading.

 

Laura

 

Likely a paying attention thing, rather than a bad-method thing.

 

DS has a specific disability, so if the average person at his level will gain 80% understaning by hearing a thing and 60% by reading it, he'll gain 20% and 60%.

 

For MOST things, I think this guy is right on the money. It boggles my mind when people try to find a way to represent EVERYTHING in a certain way because their kid is "that" kind of learner. Even if they do have relative areas of strength and weakness, you have to take into account what you're teaching, too!

[1bassoon]

For my money, Gregorc's work on learning styles and Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences are much better supported by research.

 

When I hear homeschoolers talk about "audio" "visual" and "kinesthetic" learners, I cringe. Can't help it.

 

(Full disclosure: my mom worked with one of Dr. Gregorc's research associates,has done her own research work on the subject, and has presented seminars around the country - I've been pretty well indoctrinated!:D)

[Joanne]

Interesting.

 

I'm sending this to my Research and Statistics Professor.

 

I'm inclined to be negative about his conclusions because of the "tenacity" and "authority" of the learning styles theory. :lol:

[Sara R]

I thought Gardner's theories were bunk too, right? Why is an "intelligence" different than a "talent"? Do people with musical intelligences really have to translate any group project into something that involves music, in order for them to learn? (I have graded several freshman English papers on this topic which make these kinds of arguments.)

 

For my money, Gregorc's work on learning styles and Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences are much better supported by research.

 

When I hear homeschoolers talk about "audio" "visual" and "kinesthetic" learners, I cringe. Can't help it.

 

(Full disclosure: my mom worked with one of Dr. Gregorc's research associates,has done her own research work on the subject, and has presented seminars around the country - I've been pretty well indoctrinated!:D)

[usetoschool]

The video alone makes it easy to misunderstand what he believes and take it as an all or nothing proposition. He has written a good book that explains the whole concept much more clearly and in detail. It isn't that kids don't have personalities and styles but more about how the brain works to put things into long term memory. (hint: practice, practice, practice) The book is called Why Don't Students Like School: A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions About How the Mind Works and What It Means for the Classroom. He is also a frequent contributor to the CoreKnowledge blog and method. Personally, I am a big fan.

[Perry]

I thought Gardner's theories were bunk too, right?

:iagree:

 

Here's what wiki has to say

 

Lack of empirical evidence

 

Some critics argue that many of Gardner's "intelligences" actually correlate with the g factor, supporting the idea of single dominant type of intelligence. For example, Carroll (1993) argued that verbal comprehension, auditory processing, visual perception and ability in logic and mathematics all correlate with each other and are actually subsets of global intelligence. This gives further support for a theory of a single type intelligence.

A critical review of MI theory argues that there is little empirical evidence to support it:

 

 

"To date there have been no published studies that offer evidence of the validity of the multiple intelligences. In 1994 Sternberg reported finding no empirical studies. In 2000 Allix reported finding no empirical validating studies, and at that time Gardner and Connell conceded that there was "little hard evidence for MI theory" (2000, p. 292). In 2004 Sternberg and Grigerenko stated that there were no validating studies for multiple intelligences, and in 2004 Gardner asserted that he would be "delighted were such evidence to accrue" (p. 214), and he admitted that "MI theory has few enthusiasts among psychometricians or others of a traditional psychological background" because they require "psychometric or experimental evidence that allows one to prove the existence of the several intelligences" (2004, p. 214)." (Waterhouse, 2006a, p. 208).

 

The same review presents evidence to demonstrate that cognitive neuroscience research does not support the theory of Multiple Intelligences:

 

 

"the human brain is unlikely to function via Gardner’s multiple intelligences. Taken together the evidence for the intercorrelations of subskills of IQ measures, the evidence for a shared set of genes associated with mathematics, reading, and g, and the evidence for shared and overlapping “what is it?†and “where is it?†neural processing pathways, and shared neural pathways for language, music, motor skills, and emotions suggest that it is unlikely that that each of Gardner’s intelligences could operate “via a different set of neural mechanisms†(1999, p. 99). Equally important, the evidence for the “what is it?†and “where is it?†processing pathways, for Kahneman’s two decision-making systems, and for adapted cognition modules suggests that these cognitive brain specializations have evolved to address very specific problems in our environment. Because Gardner claimed that that the intelligences are innate potentialities related to a general content area, MI theory lacks a rationale for the phylogenetic emergence of the intelligences." (From Waterhouse, 2006a, p. 213).

 

A number of articles have surveyed the use of Gardner's ideas and conclude that there is no evidence that his ideas work in practice. Steven A. Stahl found that most of the previous studies which claimed to show positive results had major flaws:

Among others, Marie Carbo claims that her learning styles work is based on research. {I discuss Carbo because she publishes extensively on her model and is very prominent in the workshop circuit...} But given the overwhelmingly negative findings in the published research, I wondered what she was citing, and about a decade ago, I thought it would be interesting to take a look. Reviewing her articles, I found that out of 17 studies she had cited, only one was published. Fifteen were doctoral dissertations and 13 of these came out of one university—St. John’s University in New York, Carbo’s alma mater. None of these had been in a peer-refereed journal. When I looked closely at the dissertations and other materials, I found that 13 of the 17 studies that supposedly support her claim had to do with learning styles based on something other than modality.[12]

[Joanne]

This is so cool. I understand this thread today in ways I would not have in July!

 

The exam I just got back was on evaluating research.

[staceyobu]

For my money, Gregorc's work on learning styles and Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences are much better supported by research.

 

When I hear homeschoolers talk about "audio" "visual" and "kinesthetic" learners, I cringe. Can't help it.

 

(Full disclosure: my mom worked with one of Dr. Gregorc's research associates,has done her own research work on the subject, and has presented seminars around the country - I've been pretty well indoctrinated!:D)

 

This is very interesting to me. I recently went to a homeschool meeting where visual/auditory/kinesthetic learning styles were talked about. Several said they had kinesthetic learners... examples given of little boys who moved around and couldn't sit still "because that is how they learn".

 

Now, my oldest is four. I am an expert of nothing. I know nothing of homeschooling... nothing of child raising... nothing. But, I couldn't help but think "Or you just have a boy who can't sit still. He doesn't "learn" from moving around. He just has a hard time sitting there and doing his work." Now, I don't think little boys should have to sit still. I'm not advocating more discipline to sit and do their workbook pages. I'm just not sure it says "learning style" to me.

[Laura Corin]

Likely a paying attention thing, rather than a bad-method thing.

 

 

Calvin is an extremely obedient child with intense powers of concentration. The Montessori class was small, with two teachers, and he got lots of individual attention.

 

As I said - he had never learned through his hands, from babyhood onwards.

 

Laura

[tex-mex]

I thought Gardner's theories were bunk too, right? Why is an "intelligence" different than a "talent"? Do people with musical intelligences really have to translate any group project into something that involves music, in order for them to learn? (I have graded several freshman English papers on this topic which make these kinds of arguments.)

 

 

Auugh -- this reminds me of graduate school. :D

[Spy Car]

The false-hood of learning styles, not the myth of learning styles.

 

We are regressing :D

 

I'll admit I've never really understood how one could categorize a child or oneself as visual/auditory/kinesthetic learner, as all 3 of these modes seem to have their place in learning.

 

I've thought:

Am I a visual learner? Yes.

Am I a auditory learner? Yes.

Am I a kinesthetic learner? Yes.

 

I was thinking about Persian (Farsi) the other day. I was asking friends about expressions I wanted to learn. If they told me out-loud (only) I would forget quickly. But if I heard it, then wrote it out myself in Farsi script, and then basically memorized the Farsi script as an image in my mind, I would retain the language. The three modalities seem (to me) to re-enforce one another.

 

Perhaps I'm missing the point :lol:

 

Bill

[Heather in Neverland]

I would say that there are modes of instruction I "prefer" but not modes that I "have to have" in order to learn. I "prefer" to learn by reading rather than listening but I can learn by listening as well.

 

I guess I see the value in presenting information in a variety of ways. But I am not going to excuse my ds from reading because he "prefers" to listen. Even if he retains more from one style of instruction than another, all of them are valid and contribute to his learning.

[Guest RecumbentHeart]

This is very interesting to me. I recently went to a homeschool meeting where visual/auditory/kinesthetic learning styles were talked about. Several said they had kinesthetic learners... examples given of little boys who moved around and couldn't sit still "because that is how they learn".

 

Now, my oldest is four. I am an expert of nothing. I know nothing of homeschooling... nothing of child raising... nothing. But, I couldn't help but think "Or you just have a boy who can't sit still. He doesn't "learn" from moving around. He just has a hard time sitting there and doing his work." Now, I don't think little boys should have to sit still. I'm not advocating more discipline to sit and do their workbook pages. I'm just not sure it says "learning style" to me.

 

I would have thought the same thing. I have a suspicion that SOME people use "learning styles" the way SOME people use disorder acronyms - to excuse themselves for their child's behavior. It gives any legitimate cases a bad rap.

 

I was thinking about Persian (Farsi) the other day. I was asking friends about expressions I wanted to learn. If they told me out-loud (only) I would forget quickly. But if I heard it, then wrote it out myself in Farsi script, and then basically memorized the Farsi script as an image in my mind, I would retain the language. The three modalities seem (to me) to re-enforce one another.

 

Perhaps I'm missing the point :lol:

 

Bill

 

I have also heard many times regarding memorizing that the best way to retain anything is to utilize as many of the senses as possible and I have found that to be accurate in my own experience.

[zaichiki]

"Or you just have a boy who can't sit still. He doesn't "learn" from moving around. He just has a hard time sitting there and doing his work." Now, I don't think little boys should have to sit still. I'm not advocating more discipline to sit and do their workbook pages. I'm just not sure it says "learning style" to me.

 

I agree. My oldest was that boy... BUT he doesn't fit the "kinesthetic learner" profile.

 

He does have MUCH better visual attention than auditory attention, so I use the term "visual/spatial" learner.

 

Specifically, though, the term is code for having identified weaknesses in working memory and sequencing, but identified amazing strengths in his visual memory (near photographic). If someone says something to ds, even a few times, he may not be able to attend enough to really understand much less remember what was said. If he reads it once it is memorized (and understood). He can also physically recreate minute details in drawings (visual?) -- tends to notice tiny details with his eyes but can miss major details with his ears. His hearing is fine.

 

Dd, funnily enough, is the opposite. Her auditory attention is much more refined than her visual attention, though she does have dyslexia... maybe that's the connection? Not sure.

[lgm]

I view learning styles as a descriptive model attempting to give us words to describe the reality of the child's uneven development of brain and body. As understanding of the brain improves, the model and the theory will improve. Willingham's book is interesting..just appearing in the library 'new book' section in my area. It appears to me that the ancient chinese proverb applies:

 

I hear and I forget.

I see and I remember.

I do and I understand.

[katemary63]

I was thinking about Persian (Farsi) the other day. I was asking friends about expressions I wanted to learn. If they told me out-loud (only) I would forget quickly. But if I heard it, then wrote it out myself in Farsi script, and then basically memorized the Farsi script as an image in my mind, I would retain the language. The three modalities seem (to me) to re-enforce one another.

 

This is like me. I have to write down and visualize what I want to retain. I can not learn a dang thing by hearing alone. In fact, I frustrates me to no end. I must be writing what I am listening to or I will get frustrated. I even write as I think just to work out a problem or even an idea I am formulating. When out on the farm, my husband will try to make calculations out loud, such as adding fence line lengths or costs of materials he is going to buy for a project, and I will have to plug my ears! I CAN'T STAND to HEAR lists of things or calculations being done out loud without being able to write it down? I can't even listen to it! Since he can do it with no problem, he thinks that makes him smarter then me! :glare: In fact, he doesn't feel the need to write it down at all. In college, I would take notes out of my book or at lecture, go home and type them out and then get a visual picture of the outline. Aced the test every time! If I write it or type it and then visualize it, I retain it. Is that what everybody ( other then my dh) does? What kind of "learner" is that?

 

I do know that my son, with pretty serious ADD can not pay attention to a lecture for more then a few minutes, writes so messy he can't even read his own notes, doesn't remember what his notes say and gets frustrated easily. But...if he is DOING something interesting at the time, he will learn. I am not saying he learns by doing. But I do think that doing helps him to be able to learn at all. Even if he's not doing something that is related to the subject....he must be "doing" ALL THE TIME. It's interesting that he joined the Marines and I was scared to death for him. How can a kid like that succeed in such a high pressure environment where you have to pay attention to EVERYTHING every single second. But he was a raging success in boot camp, one of the best of his platoon of 500. The intense pressure and structure was perfect for him. He even scored high on the written work and passed all his written tests. Really, I don't know what any of this means and I find it confusing.

Edited October 23, 2009 by katemary63

[lgm]

I found lecture to useful in the humanities, particularly english, history, math and economics. Science and engineering though - give me demos, visuals, problems, and time to process. I must understand in order to remember and use the material later. I think the difference is that I had more life experience in the former than the latter when I was in college, so it was very easy to follow those lectures & just take notes to aid in test prep. In science and eng., I had to transcribe the lecture in order to study effectively.

[EKS]

Calvin is an extremely obedient child with intense powers of concentration. The Montessori class was small, with two teachers, and he got lots of individual attention.

 

As I said - he had never learned through his hands, from babyhood onwards.

 

Laura

 

I have to agree with this. My son was diagnosed with "motor planning problems". He also went to a Montessori school and basically flunked out (if one can do such a thing). I never understood what the problem was until I used MUS with him one year. He had a horrible time manipulating the manipulatives. He was so wrapped up in how to move them around to get the result he wanted that he would forget all about what he was doing math-wise. I think this was one of his (many) problems in the Montessori classroom as well.

[Kimber]

I wasted my middle son's time by trying to teach him differently than I did my older two. Most people would say he is a kinesthetic learner. I disagree though. I think my sons moving is separate from his learning.

 

He moves constantly--bouncing on furniture, running around the house, hopping up and down. He has to move. It's unusual for our family because the rest of us are very calm laid back people, including the other two boys. We're basically sloths. :-)

 

I bought into the learning style thing and tried a more Montessori approach with him. It slowed him down.

 

I have come to accept that my son moves because he needs to move and that not moving distracts him from learning. But the moving doesn't have to be focused on the topic we are discussing nor tied into it in anyway for him to understand his school work. In other words, manipulatives are no more important for him than they were for my other kids. I just have to let him exist in his natural state and teach him there. His natural state just happens to be super active.

[Seeker]

Personally, I lean more on the Gregorc's Model, because I think that all senses are used by all, but I believe that we do rely on certain input methods more than others. For instance, I can learn to do or about anything from reading it or seeing it in great detail, but hearing it alone I only catch the highlights unless I am focused on visualizing the details.

 

My daughter uses all these methods nearly evenly, but I believe that is because of her early training with piano. She started lessons at four years old. Even so, she leans a bit more toward visual on most things. However, she most definitely is a random abstract learner, as sequential and concrete methodologies are not her thing at all.

 

My husband is more kinetic, and that does not equate to hyperactive. He cannot really retain the information unless he has the opportunity to apply it hands-on. His second best is auditory. He chose well for his profession which is in a highly technical service industry. He is most definitely a concrete random learner.

 

I do agree that trying to present everything just a certain way to each child is perhaps overboard particularly after the elementary years, but I believe that the child should learn to use his strengths to modify how the information gets retained. For instance, if sitting in on a lecture, the more visual learner needs to take notes or just doodle while listening.

To me, the learning styles thing is kind of like blood. Everyone has blood but antigen factors in the blood make break it down into four distinct groups. However, it does not end there because there are within those groups other factors, like atypical antibodies, that make it a specific type, even thought it is all just blood and looks about the same to the eye. Likewise, I think that learning styles can be grouped, but each individual is also quite individual.

 

As I said in an earlier post, with every theory you will find whoever believes in the theory will try to fit everything into it. So, if you believe in learning styles, you see learning styles...and if you don't, you won't.

Edited October 23, 2009 by Seeker

[zaichiki]

I have come to accept that my son moves because he needs to move and that not moving distracts him from learning. But the moving doesn't have to be focused on the topic we are discussing nor tied into it in anyway for him to understand his school work. In other words, manipulatives are no more important for him than they were for my other kids. I just have to let him exist in his natural state and teach him there. His natural state just happens to be super active.

 

My oldest was like this. When he needed to move, NOT moving (being still) required so much energy and attention that he didn't learn well at that time. When his movement was unrestricted he could focus on learning the material at hand better. At the same time, though, he could sit still and read for hours.

 

Now that ds is older he needs to wiggle around much less than he did before. What a change a few years can make!

[cathmom]

I was LOLing because when I saw that was a youtube video instead of an article, my heart sank. I would MUCH rather read an article!

 

I certainly wouldn't use learning styles in the way that he suggests (present EVERYTHING in a student's preferred style) but that doesn't mean that I don't think they exist.

 

I need to see words written out in order to learn a foreign language. I have never tried to learn one with a different alphabet, but I have serious doubts about my ability to do so. It would take me a lot longer, I'm sure, because I could not learn in my preferred learning style of seeing the words.

[mominbc]

Learning styles have their place. I agree would shouldn't put all the eggs in one basket but in my own family I can prove they exist. My daughter can hear a cd and repeat back word for word what was said. She can read something and will forget it. My son can color code his work and when taking a test can remember the information by color. But read something to him and he can't remember what you said.

But do I caiter to that alone, of course not, but it helps to understand them and if I really want to help them memorize something it helps to know how they think.

[Sara R]

I was asking friends about expressions I wanted to learn. If they told me out-loud (only) I would forget quickly. But if I heard it, then wrote it out myself in Farsi script, and then basically memorized the Farsi script as an image in my mind, I would retain the language. The three modalities seem (to me) to re-enforce one another.

 

How much of that is just the repetition, and not the varying modalities? The kind of repetition you are describing is required for getting the information into long term memory. Varying the modalities makes the practice more interesting.

[christielee7278]

This is very interesting to me. I recently went to a homeschool meeting where visual/auditory/kinesthetic learning styles were talked about. Several said they had kinesthetic learners... examples given of little boys who moved around and couldn't sit still "because that is how they learn".

 

Now, my oldest is four. I am an expert of nothing. I know nothing of homeschooling... nothing of child raising... nothing. But, I couldn't help but think "Or you just have a boy who can't sit still. He doesn't "learn" from moving around. He just has a hard time sitting there and doing his work." Now, I don't think little boys should have to sit still. I'm not advocating more discipline to sit and do their workbook pages. I'm just not sure it says "learning style" to me.

 

My thinking is the same as yours.

 

When my oldest was diagnosed with ADHD and we started thinking about homeschooling him, I read a lot of articles on learning styles. He is one who moves around a lot. While in ps, he would often get in trouble for standing at his desk while working, waving a hand in the air, nodding his head up and down, etc. (and I completely get *why* he couldn't be allowed to do these things)

 

I read ideas about having him play on the floor while I read to him to help him retain information. NEVER make him sit at a desk or table to do any work. I gave it a try when we took him out of school. It was one of the reasons I stated for taking him out of school.....he needs to move to learn. Did not work AT ALL. If he is playing, he is only paying attention to what he is DOING, not to what I am saying.

 

For my ADHD child who loves to move, I make him sit at a table to do his work. Not for long periods of time, but he does sit to do his work. Even with oral work, I tell him "feet down, sit up, and focus." His fourth grade teacher (who only had 11 children in her class) just didn't take the time to make him sit. Instead she just sent him to the principal's office when all he really needed was for her to say "sit down, Nathan." He did very well in 3rd grade ps, and now that I think about it, the teacher made him sit next to her desk so she could keep him in his seat. ;)

Edited October 24, 2009 by christielee7278

[ElizabethB]

My daughter learns things very well from reading them--I thought she was better at that, but for a while when my husband was deployed, we did math facts orally in the car instead of written, and she required the exact same amount of repetition orally as written.

 

A few weeks after that, I read the an article by Willingham, it was much more convincing than if I'd seen it before I had tried doing both and observing the results.

 

I prefer written to audio, but I read fast, so that is part of it.

[LittleIzumi]

Interesting posts :). I know I taught my dds almost the same way (as much as possible), and while dd1 thrived on books/songs/posters, dd2 did not seem to pick up ANYTHING taught that way. If she is moving or the subject matter is moving, then she gets it. Reading books/alphabet song/letter games/posters/etc for ABCs--nada. Signing Time ABC Practice Time over a period of two weeks--knew every single letter. She seems to be able to apply her learning in other places once she learns it, but as far as I can tell she really only learns with movement, herself moving or her instruction moving (like Starfall.com, or climbing stairs while counting, etc). She has some sensory issues but they shouldn't be the sole cause of this--her therapists were very surprised.

[TravelingChris]

My daughter is an auditory child. No that doesn't mean she gets all oral work or anything like that. She can do plenty of things using both visual and kinesthetic. HOwever, what she does have is an extraordinary auditory world. She dreams in sounds and music. She also is very cognizant of the sound qualities and tones of people, animals, whatever. It is her best sense and she goes over some more difficult work by reading it aloud. She also gets much more from lectures than from reading. My other daughter is opposite and needs to see words. DOes that mean that in a large classroom either of them need special accomodations? No. However, since I homeschool, I can make sure dd 1 has more video lectures and dd 2 has her textbooks. Tada- problem solved. Oh and dd 1's issues with visual memory have greatly diminished as she has gotten older. But her auditory memory is still much more dominant.

[Seeker]

Interesting. As I read through some of the posts, I found it interesting that a child, who expresses restlessness or hyperactivity, has often been wrongly identified as a kinetic learner.

 

Being that we lean classical here, I am obviously a believer in rote, particularly in the grammar stage, however how that information is presented can make it longer or shorter for the child to memorize. As I said before, my child is fairly even, but certain things she gets more visually and others more audibly and a few others more kinetically, and I have purposely tried to expound her boundaries in how she accepts information so she continues to be more well rounded in that way. However, I have also tutored math and I have to say that some children are in the extremes of a learning style and repetition is not enough unless it is done in an input style compatible with how the child can recognize and understand the information, otherwise it is like installing a Mac program on a PC. No matter how great the computer is, if the program does not "speak its language" it is not going to work.

[zaichiki]

How much of that is just the repetition, and not the varying modalities? The kind of repetition you are describing is required for getting the information into long term memory. Varying the modalities makes the practice more interesting.

 

 

I think some people are also more balanced learners, able to process fairly equally well whether the information is provided visually or auditorily. That describes me. When I was first researching learning styles, and taking some on-line "quizzes" that helped determine learning style, I was really confused. I seemed to have a similar number of characteristics/"votes" for each style. It's easy to want to dismiss the whole thing from that perspective.

 

But... my husband and children are different. Each one is much stronger in one modality than another (oldest is visual, dd is auditory, and dh is the "hands-on"/trial-and-error/must discover it for myself type).

[zaichiki]

Learning styles have their place. I agree would shouldn't put all the eggs in one basket but in my own family I can prove they exist. My daughter can hear a cd and repeat back word for word what was said. She can read something and will forget it. My son can color code his work and when taking a test can remember the information by color. But read something to him and he can't remember what you said.

 

But do I caiter to that alone, of course not, but it helps to understand them and if I really want to help them memorize something it helps to know how they think.

:iagree:

[Spy Car]

How much of that is just the repetition, and not the varying modalities? The kind of repetition you are describing is required for getting the information into long term memory. Varying the modalities makes the practice more interesting.

 

I think it is not the repetition. In this case I wrote an expression I wanted to learn only one time in Farsi script.

 

Roughly transliterated into English the expression was "khoshmaze," which is a compound word in Farsi combining "good" and "taste" to mean "delicious".

 

I said the word quite a few times before I wrote it out in Farsi script. I could not for the life of me retain it more than a few minutes. So I asked my friend to write it in Farsi script, and had an ah-ha moment. Then I wrote it out in Farsi script myself (I know the characters).

 

For sometime if the re-call of the expression started to "slip" I visualized the word as an image in the Farsi script, and would have total recall.

 

Now "khoshmaze" is just a "normal" expression I know, but there was a multi-part (and multi-sensory) process to learning it that I found fascinating (and I''m sure bores everyone else to tears :D)

 

Bill

[SonshineLearner]

Wow... another cool thing about Bill:D:D:D He knows Farsi:001_smile:

 

I wish we could all meet, it'd be fun to put faces with posts:D

 

Carrie

[Spy Car]

Wow... another cool thing about Bill:D:D:D He knows Farsi:001_smile:

 

 

 

No. No. I don't know Farsi. I only know a few words and expressions, and I can "read" the characters (roughly) from having studying a little Arabic (which has really faded).

 

But it is fun to go to Persian markets around here (we have many), and "read" things in Farsi in front of the store-clerks, and I get the weirdest looks.

 

"You have Persian vife?

No.

Would you like Persian vife? :D

 

I wish we could all meet, it'd be fun to put faces with posts:D

 

Carrie

 

That would be fun!

 

Bill