age when you knew learning style?

[MeganW]

I have read tons about identifying your child's learning style, but I really can't decide exactly what my kids are. But we only do minimal seatwork, maybe 10-15 minutes a day.

 

How old were your kids when you KNEW what their learning style was? How far into formal schooling were you? Did you know at the preschool level? Kindergarten? Or true grade school level?

 

For those who have multiples / close-age siblings, does that make a difference? I hate to phrase it this way, but I don't know how else to say it - I tend to teach to the lowest common denominator. I teach in a variety of ways until everyone gets it, and I don't always know when the lightbulb turns on for an individual - we just keep reviewing until we all have it. Is it harder to identify learning styles when you have several students at the same level b/c you aren't giving them the individual attention they might have in a different family situation? (Yes, this is the age-old question every mother of multiples is plagued by - am I doing enough to treat them like individuals? Maybe they are deprived of individual attention??)

[bellabee03]

:bigear:

 

I would love to know the answer to this as well. We are just now starting with a 9 yr old and 6 yr old and I am having trouble trying to decipher what their learning styles are.

[Penelope]

With one of my children there seemed to be a clear preference very early.

 

But, I'm not sure what to make of the learning styles theory. It seems almost like a fad to me. Reading Daniel Willingham made a lot of sense to me. He has a video on youtube about learning styles (he says there is no such thing).

[Ellie]

I never figured out what my dc were. We managed to get through things, anyway. :D

[sbgrace]

I've got a child who is extremely auditory in his learning style. He's obvious and has been for such a long time (before school or lessons began) but I think it's because he's so extreme in that area. The other has been harder. I'm not sure it's as important when a child isn't extreme in one way or another as they can adapt reasonably well to other styles.

 

But I thought I would reply as a mom of kids the same age (though only two in our case). I can't imagine trying to tailor actual curriculum choices each child. I try to pick something that has wide appeal and uses multiple modalities if possible. If something is not working at all for a child or there are major learning issues I will and have switched it to accommodate the struggling child. But, again, I'm picking programs that will be good for both kids as they are solid choices. I do tend to teach my boys separately in major content areas (for us phonics, math, narrations, handwriting). That way I know if both are "getting it" and can take extra time if someone isn't. We do the other stuff together.

Edited August 22, 2010 by sbgrace

[Corraleno]

I knew by the time DS was 3 or 4 that he was extremely visual/spatial like his dad. He remembers everything he sees, and almost nothing of what he hears. He can't carry a tune, has no sense of rhythm, and dislikes most music. OTOH, even at 4 or 5 he would draw objects with perspective, foreshortening, etc. He could look at something and draw it from different angles without moving the object, as if he could turn it around in his mind. As a toddler he used to build elaborate 3D structures with blocks, plastic tubs, and all kinds of found objects. He was a late talker, but once he could talk he asked very deep, abstract questions like "Can you multiply and divide by infinity? How far apart do the molecules at the edge of space get? How do you know that's the edge of space and there aren't a few more molecules millions of miles away?" It was clear that he was not only thinking very abstractly, but he was trying to picture these things in his mind as well.

 

DD7 is the exact opposite: she's very verbal/sequential/auditory and not visual or spatial at all. She struggles with abstract concepts, tends to take things very literally, and accepts things at face value. She draws things in a very flat way, and tends to draw the same things over and over (stick-figure people, daisy-type flowers, etc.). She has an excellent memory, though, and learns new facts/words/tasks easily. She can remember and follow long, multi-step verbal directions well, even a long time after she hears them. She also has perfect pitch, and learns new pieces on the violin very quickly — often the teacher will teach her the first few notes and she will just keep going, playing several lines on her own just from having heard the piece before.

 

I think with kids who are the far ends of the spectrum in a particular learning style, it tends to be apparent when they're quite young. If it's hard to figure out what a child's preferred "learning style" is, even after several years of schooling, it may just be that the child learns reasonably well in several modes rather than being wired for just one.

 

Jackie

[Corraleno]

I'm not sure what to make of the learning styles theory. It seems almost like a fad to me. Reading Daniel Willingham made a lot of sense to me. He has a video on youtube about learning styles (he says there is no such thing).

OK, I just watched his video — there are so many flaws in his argument I hardly know where to start. First, he doesn't cite any research whatsoever to back his claim that "the brain doesn't work that way." There are plenty of other neurologists who would disagree with him. Secondly, he totally made up the "outcomes" he claims the model would predict, and finally, the examples he chose are so oversimplified as to be absurd.

 

The examples he uses to illustrate "how people learn" are single concepts, like the shape of a dog's ears, the sound of someone's voice, or the shape of countries on a map. He points out that everyone remembers the shape of a dog's ears visually, and the sound of someone's voice auditorially, therefore everyone learns the same way and there's no such thing as "learning styles." Well, duh, of course everyone remembers images visually and sounds auditorially.

 

The real question is: how do students learn and remember the events of the civil war? How do they learn biochemistry? How do they memorize the times tables? If a student reads a textbook chapter three times and can't remember any of it, but watches a documentary once and can easily recall every name, date, battle, and key event, is that a coincidence? If a student struggles for months, or even years, to memorize math facts, and then learns them perfectly in a couple of days using a picture system like Times Tales, is that just a fluke? According to Willingham, people only think there's a correlation there because they already believe in this bogus "learning styles" theory. Well, perhaps Willingham refuses to see the correlation that is there, because he already believes the bogus theory that learning styles don't exist. If there's no such thing as learning styles, how come Benoit Mandebrot was able to visualize & invent fractal geometry but was never able to memorize the times tables above the 5s?

 

There is no question that some people think in pictures and some people think in words. (Maybe some people think in sounds, too, I don't know.) DH and DS not only think in pictures, they think in 3d, and they both have a very hard time translating their thoughts into words — whenever I ask DH to explain something to me, he draws a picture (usually a "3D" picture in perspective, which is even harder for me to decipher!). I can't "read" that, I need it in words. Whenever I drive anywhere new, I need verbal, sequential directions — go 7 miles on Maple Drive; turn left on Elm; go 3 miles and turn right on Oak St, etc. DH needs a map, he cannot drive with verbal directions. He needs a picture in his head of where he's going, and he needs visual landmarks along the way.

 

When I lived in England, our pediatrician assured me that there was "no such thing as dyslexia" — it was just an excuse Americans invented to explain why American kids couldn't read. Just as ignorance of dyslexia resulted in millions of kids being treated as if they were stupid or lazy, I think ignorance of the very real differences in how kids think and learn will continue to condemn some kids (like my DH & DS) to years of misery in a public school system designed specifically for one type of student: verbal learners with a high tolerance for boredom.

 

/rant!

 

Jackie

[LittleIzumi]

With my oldest I found out at 4. She did weird things and I checked out some sites & some books & realized she's a very visual learner, visual & a little spatial. Her little sister I am still working on, but I know she's a very sensory person in general.

[Closeacademy]

Oldest--age 4/5, visual-spatial learner, she is also a late-talker (though you wouldn't know that now)

 

youngest--7, hands-on learner/learns through stories, very physical child, very active but shy around adults

 

Why did it take me so long with my youngest? Because I thought she was one of those kids who would do find with textbooks because she liked books and stories so much.:001_smile:

[Ester Maria]

While I'm not sure I would go as far to claim that the theory of learning styles is a bogus theory, I have noticed that nobody I know has a definite preference, and that learning styles very often "shift" with regards to specific fields.

 

I have always been the kind of student that tried her best to function the way the setting requires her to function - I strived to learn geometry with very little explicit verbal explanations, and all of maths within its own language, and much visualizations (for geometry and alike) and sometimes forced de-verbalizing of the experience that I'd be tempted to do, though I am BY NO MEANS a visual type. I also used to play mental chess out of class boredom at a certain stage in my life, though I'm far from visual. Did it take me more time to learn how to play chess without visual stimulans? Probably. Was it impossible for me? Nope.

I was NEVER hands on type of person, never had to physically experience what I'm learning, I greatly preferred abstraction in my mind... but, when necessary, I could adapt myself to practical learning (in chemistry labs and similar situations), to learning through muscle memory (speech in foreign languages, music, dance).

I naturally excelled in fields which required language, verbal thinking: from languages themselves to literature, philosophy and related fields. But, would it have been impossible for me to go into medical field (with all the visual thinking needed for it) or professional dance? No - I would have just had to put more effort into it.

 

I believe that most fields have a certain way they should be learned, and some of those ways don't come "naturally" to us, while some other ways do (so, in that aspect, I do agree with some ideas of the theory of learning styles). It only means we must strive harder to learn to function within each field on its own terms rather than on our preferred terms. If something requires a lot of reading and verbal thinking, adapt yourself to reading, rather than watching a film instead of it. I would NEVER allow my child not to read a work but to watch a film instead, since it's two different "works" we're talking about that way - especially not under the pretext of a learning style. If something requires visualization, I know that my older daughter will have more difficulties than my younger one, but she has to master it to the best of her ability and develop even the skills that are underdeveloped in her.

 

So yes, there are preferences, but honestly, I hardly take it into account, let alone tailor their educations by those preferences. And those preferences that exist, once you make them study different things different ways, tend to shift as well. They might discover that a particular way of thinking that wasn't as "natural" to them actually suits them better than something they'd be more tempted to do.

 

I knew it right away, probably even before formal schooling, that I have kids who can learn in many different ways. And that the younger one is more visual, while the older one verbal. And that none of them requires any hands on as they can both manipulate abstract concepts.

 

In my entire life, if we don't count the cases of physical disability, I have met a handful of individuals who couldn't function in a certain way, or could but at such a "cost" that it doesn't "pay off" for them to strive. We had a wide range of musical abilities in class, from perfect pitch to people who could barely pass a hearing dictation (barely - but passed), yet I can think of a single girl who couldn't carry a tune at all (and loved music :( which was somewhat tragicomic, as she just couldn't sing, and even with explicit music instruction didn't learn how to carry a tune), and whose lack of sense for rhythm transferred to other fields as well (e.g. she was the only one that was failing Latin/Greek because of scansion, even when they allowed her to have clearly marked stresses, etc.). But that's it, probably a single case. I can think of very few such cases for other types of abilities as well - but very few. Most people CAN adapt themselves to different modes of thinking and functioning, it just requires effort. And generally, from my observations, the more intelligent the person, the better they function in various different settings (isn't one of the definitions of intelligence "the ability to function in a new setting"?) as opposed to being able to function only in a certain way.

 

So in your case, I wouldn't worry. I'd continue to have my kids function in different ways for different fields, and allow them to learn as preferred things that can be learned in many ways, without pondering too much about what exactly are their learning styles. Most people are cameleons to certain degree when it comes to learning styles.

[abbeyej]

I think maybe you're over-thinking it. It sounds like you're already using good practices: making sure your kids are exposed to a variety of learning modalities and teaching to mastery. That's *great*. Most of us don't have a single way that we learn best over time in all subjects. Especially very small children change as they grow and develop!

[guateangel]

Had I payed more attention, I would have seen the signs in Preschool but I didn't know until 1st grade (6 yrs. old) when it became quite clear she is extremely auditory.

[Wheres Toto]

My son is definitely visual-spatial. I figured out pretty quick he was visual but I thought he had a little kinesthetic in there too. Now, I think the kinesthetic is just a normal little boys energy and he definitely learns visual. I did some research and found a quiz that didn't have a bunch of stuff involving reading (since he isn't yet) and could be done by a parent based on how a young child plays/remembers things (wish I could remember where I found it but I can't :confused:) but he came out strongly visual-spatial. I know I'm visual-spatial. I am completely incapable of listening to audio books - my mind wanders completely. But, I can remember almost anything I read or see. I can actually visualize a chart or page and remember the layout and what is shown. I also picture the action of a book in my mind while reading.

 

I have no idea for my youngest.

 

My oldest seems to be pretty adaptable. She's always gone to public school, including preschool/daycare and done very well so I think she's adapted to whatever she needed to do for school regardless of what her own preference may be. She does love to read and isn't a great listener but that may not have anything to do with learning style. :glare:

[AngieW in Texas]

Be aware that learning style can change as the kids grow older.

[misidawnrn]

I haven't researched any of the "learning styles". I do know that DD doesn't learn best by just being talked to/read to. She does well with writing it down, workbooky stuff. She doesn't do well with narration where I read her a story and she narrates back to me what happened. If she reads the book herself she does much better with the narration part. I am the same way. I have a hard time listening to people talk and do better reading it myself. I just do the lesson with DD whether it be math, history etc until she gets it. For example GWG, she did the workbook pages and I wrote more sentences, statements, questions and exclaimations on another page and made her tell me what they were and put proper .?! at the end. Then I had her write an example of each one. She did great at writing it but not at me just telling her what it was.

[RootAnn]

Be aware that learning style can change as the kids grow older.

 

:iagree: I can tell you my oldest two "styles" a la Cathy Duffy's "types" (social sue, wiggly willy, perfect paula). My oldest hates writing and couldn't sit still (unless being read to) for very long. My #2 kid loves to be around others, loves to have a pencil/pen/marker in hand all the time (very artistic).

 

I figure them out as they come to "school age" and I agree completely that they change as they get older.

 

Good luck! :-)