Should I know my kid's Learning Style?

[El...]

A more experienced home school mom asked me what my 5yo's learning style is. I think I understand basically what she's asking, but I haven't read up on it or analyzed my kid.

 

At this point, I think I should teach her using as many learning avenues as possible (preschool: say the letter sound aloud, form the letter with cooked spaghetti, find the letter on the wall chart, find the letter on the page...hear, say, touch, see, see...).

 

If I figure out her favored learning style and choose curricula that cater to it, wouldn't that be a disservice? Wouldn't she be better off learning to adapt?

 

She has no learning disabilities. (Obviously that would make a difference - I'd teach however she'd learn, in that situation.)

 

What don't I understand? What should I read about learning styles? Do they matter to you?

 

Thanks!

[Reya]

There is no such thing as learning styles. Really, there isn't.

 

Good link: http://www.changemag.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/September-October%202010/the-myth-of-learning-full.html

[Reya]

http://eppic.biz/2007/05/08/debunking-the-myth-there-is-no-such-thing-as-%E2%80%9Clearning-styles%E2%80%9D/

http://workplacepsychology.net/2010/04/10/evidence-based-training-debunking-the-myth-of-learning-styles/

http://blog.cathy-moore.com/2010/09/learning-styles-worth-our-time/

http://cammybean.kineo.com/2007/05/learning-styles-as-fortune-telling.html

http://www.oxfordlearning.com/letstalk/2005/10/03/the-myth-of-learning-styles/

 

And even this:

http://www.willatworklearning.com/2006/08/learning_styles.html

[Karen in CO]

I'm another one against learning styles. The links above are a good start, and it is important to decide for yourself. It seems you're already leaning this way. There are a LOT of parents and teachers that firmly believe in learning styles. If you don't agree, it is often better to pleasantly smile and say something lite unless you're prepared with a vigorous defense.

[Ellie]

I was never able to figure out my children's learning styles. I know now that they (and I) tend to be more visual and auditory rather than kinesthetic, but we never fit into any of the nice tidy categories that are promoted by so many.

[Corraleno]

The way the concept of "learning styles" has been defined and applied by "educational specialists" is shallow and stupid. Big surprise! That doesn't mean they don't exist. It's no coincidence that everyone who argues against the existence of learning styles adds the caveat that of course learning disabilities are different; those kids don't count. So... first we partition off all the kids who think differently, and call them "disabled," and then we point to the kids who are left and say "see, we told you there are minimal differences in learning styles!"

 

I'm a strong verbal/sequential/parts-to-whole type learner — exactly the sort of student the educational system is designed for. I think exclusively in words, I read & write well, I learn well from textbooks and have no trouble organizing information in linear form, etc. OTOH, I can't visualize things in 3D to save my life, and I have no sense of direction. But those things aren't tested in school, so no disability labels for me!

 

My DH and DS are the opposite: visual/spatial, whole-to-part learners who think in 3D moving images rather than words ("holographic thinkers" is probably more accurate than "picture thinkers"). At 8, DH was sent for testing because his teachers thought he was mentally disabled. Imagine their surprise when the tests showed an IQ of 164 — despite DH having bombed the verbal portions of the test. He'd completed the visual/spatial tasks so quickly and so perfectly that he had "ceilinged out," meaning that his score would have been off the chart. But of course there's no such thing as a "visual/spatial learning style" — let's focus on the "disability" and put kids like this in remedial reading classes where they'll be bored out of their minds.

 

My DS flunked 3rd grade, repeated it in PS, and still ended up barely able to read, unable to write or spell, and totally lost in math. Now, in 8th grade, he's acing Greek & Latin, and is teaching himself Turkish for fun. He took an intensive online math class last year that had kids graphing complex functions in 4 dimensions and proving the quadratic formula. The difference? Teaching the way he thinks, instead of telling him that he's defective because he doesn't think the way I do. But then, he's "disabled," right? So stories like his don't count.

 

It's easy to prove something if you first exclude from consideration all the factors that would disprove it.

 

Jackie

[regentrude]

I disagree with the claim that there is no "learning style".

While many students may be able to process information through different channels at the same level, many other students also have a marked preference for certain methods of delivery. Usually you don't need a "test" to find that out - observant parenting is sufficient.

 

I have two strong visual learners, one more than the other, and I am a visual learner myself. How can I tell?

Despite strong verbal skills, memorization via reciting will not work; the times tables or french conjugations have to be seen on a poster in order to be retained. I can quickly memorize large amounts of names if I see them written on name tags or class lists; I am unable to remember names of people who introduce themselves orally. I organize study notes through lines between phrases, underlining, color. My son learns best from videos and can retain information he has seen in documentaries at an astonishing rate.

Btw, despite being a visual learner, I have no 3-d spatial skills; I visualize WORDS, not three-dimensional structures, and I am a highly sequential learner. So, contrary to what is often claimed, visual learning does not automatically imply great spatial skills or whole-to-parts thinking. Having a preferred method of learning does not mean the student fits neatly into a box labeled "Style X" - but that does not mean there IS no preferred method.

 

Other students need to hear information because they are auditory learners; they do very well with audio lectures, memorize foreign language and poetry by speaking.

yet others have a strong need to move and will be able to remember best when they dance, stomp, jump; they tend to be in trouble in traditional schools, because the environment is not suited for kinesthetic learners.

In my work as a college instructor I have seen different learning styles in action; anybody who denies these differences is doing the students a grave disservice.

 

But for the OP, I'd like to repeat: for a young child, you, as a parent, are perfectly capable of figuring out what works best for your child by trying different things and being observant. you do not need a formal test, unless your child has actual trouble.

[Corraleno]

Btw, despite being a visual learner, I have no 3-d spatial skills; I visualize WORDS, not three-dimensional structures, and I am a highly sequential learner. So, contrary to what is often claimed, visual learning does not automatically imply great spatial skills or whole-to-parts thinking. Having a preferred method of learning does not mean the student fits neatly into a box labeled "Style X" - but that does not mean there IS no preferred method.

 

 

This is a good point — in some people, like my DH & DS, the visual, spatial, and whole-to-parts traits tend to clump together in a recognizable "type," but each of those traits (and many others) are really individual axes, with each person landing at different points on each axis. A truly accurate assessment of someone's mode of learning would best be described by a point plotted in multi-dimensional space. Most people will hover around the center, whereas some will end up way out at the edges.

 

The fact that "learning styles" are really a multidimensional continuum, and not a set of shallowly defined pigeon holes, as education specialists would define them, doesn't make them less real. It may make it harder to implement real solutions, when the underlying issues are not easily quantified and "boxed," but the solution to that problem starts with getting rid of the boxes, not denying the existence of very real differences in brain wiring.

 

Jackie

[Colleen in NS]

A more experienced home school mom asked me what my 5yo's learning style is. I think I understand basically what she's asking, but I haven't read up on it or analyzed my kid.

 

At this point, I think I should teach her using as many learning avenues as possible (preschool: say the letter sound aloud, form the letter with cooked spaghetti, find the letter on the wall chart, find the letter on the page...hear, say, touch, see, see...).

 

To answer your post title question, I'd say, "Nah, don't worry about it."

 

Why did the other mom ask you? Had you been asking for advice about something, so that knowing your 5yo's "style" would have been helpful to her in advising you; or was she just making conversation? From the rest of your post, it sounds as if she was just making conversation. And you sound like you know what's best for your 5yo right now, which is all that is needed right now. You will learn more about your child as the child grows and as you continue teaching/finding ways to teach in order that the child might learn well. Besides, kids change as they grow. What works now might not work three years from now. But you will figure it out as you research, bounce ideas off other homeschool parents, and work with your child.

[Mom22ns]

I don't think learning style is something you need to worry about. I do think that different people process information differently. Regentrude illustrated that well. I also agree that using lots of different modalities and addressing multiple intelligences helps almost all kids learn more. Most of us learn through a combination of styles and senses, not just one.

 

That said, I have a child who learns visually. He must see anything you want him to retain. If he reads it, he knows it. If you tell him, nothing. This child has multiple LDs.

 

I have another child who learns verbally. She must hear anything she is to retain, even if she has to read it aloud to herself. She can read well, but to remember she must hear the information. She has no disabilities.

 

Knowing these things helps me. I teach them together sometimes, but if we are reading together, ds holds a copy of the books so he can read along, dd just listens. They can both be required to gain the same level of knowledge and give back the same level of output, but they will not equally benefit from the same inputs. Understanding this reduced my frustration as a teacher more than you can imagine.

[El...]

That helps a lot. My friend was being kind; knowing her children's learning styles has helped her tailor some things to them. I think I'll read up on this. I may learn more ways to present things. Thank you very much!

[Mukmuk]

I was a bit stunned by the research that says there's no such thing as learning styles. A matter of semantics, perhaps? I won't be reading a book to tell me that though. I have a live sample in front of me that can't take in information unless its specifically hands on or visual spatial. And he sees patterns that I can only read about from a book.

 

In this day and age where we see so much diversity and individuality, it does make sense that our brains are wired somewhat differently in response to different experiences and genetics. Like snowflakes. Do we look at how similar they are? Or do we celebrate their uniqueness?

[Tullia]

I wouldn't worry about it, but knowing about different options might help you choose a variety of resources. When looking for materials I tried to use things that worked with my son's strengths for our core, but chose supplements that would expand his range...if that makes any sense. I agree that people process information differently, and think it's good to be aware of how that might affect your interactions with your child. Sometimes materials and teaching methods that appealed to me didn't work for my son. OTOH, in order for me to do a good job teaching I needed materials that worked for me as well--but that didn't really show up until my son was older. Neither of us fit neatly into any category.

[PeterPan]

A more experienced home school mom asked me what my 5yo's learning style is. I think I understand basically what she's asking, but I haven't read up on it or analyzed my kid.

 

At this point, I think I should teach her using as many learning avenues as possible (preschool: say the letter sound aloud, form the letter with cooked spaghetti, find the letter on the wall chart, find the letter on the page...hear, say, touch, see, see...).

 

If I figure out her favored learning style and choose curricula that cater to it, wouldn't that be a disservice? Wouldn't she be better off learning to adapt?

 

She has no learning disabilities. (Obviously that would make a difference - I'd teach however she'd learn, in that situation.)

 

What don't I understand? What should I read about learning styles? Do they matter to you?

 

Thanks!

 

I think the point is, you will likely figure out how your child learns best without calling it anything.

 

Yes, you're probably pretty in-tune with how your dc processes and learns best. You may not *see* it because you aren't teaching several kids to see the comparisons. It *is* helpful to know how your dc interacts with material, because you can chose your methodologies. You might appreciate reading Cathy Duffy's stuff on the topic. The library will have her books. Yes, when a dc is young you use *all* the modalities. When they get *older* they will grow in their *ability* to learn through a modalities that aren't their preference. Sometimes they have to do some compensating.

 

I haven't read the article Reya cited. Maybe it has some validity, don't know. I will tell you that our speech therapist has a very standard test she administers to all the kids (VMPAC, a test of motor control) that, just as part of it, happens to show learning style. They take the same task and go through it multiple ways. If he can't do it just by asking him to do it, can he do it if you *explain* it (auditory) or if you demonstrate it (visual) or if you physically give input (kinesthetic). That's not voodoo but just plain and simple how kids learn. And when you do that over and over again across the test you start to see percentages piling up where xyz input was more effective at helping the dc accomplish the motor control task than another method was. So that's a standardized test used by therapists that tests developmentally appropriate motor control AND gives them information on how the dc can best receive instruction. It would be FOOLISH to ignore such basic information.

 

My ds is CLEARLY more kinesthetic than my dd was, and in fact that VMPAC test shows this. It's quite important in our house, because he needs speech therapy to be able to form sounds (motor control, apraxia). So I can *say* he ought to be able to learn just by demonstrating or just by verbal instructions, but the reality is he's a kinesthetic learner and actually has to have someone TOUCH him and get him MOVING for it to click. So I just carry that over and put kinesthetic things into all our school time together. It just makes sense.

 

You have the right *concept* (that they're going to have to be able to survive in a variety of environments), but you're applying it a bit too *soon*. It's not necessary to force a young dc to learn in ways that don't fit him. Most kids aren't *1* learning style anyway. My dd is VSL with dominant auditory processing because of her prior vision problems. (How's that for contradictory? LOL) My ds is kinesthetic plus visual. Actually, on the tests the SLP did, he has off the charts auditory recall too. That's kind of wild. Kids don't have just *1* typically, but they can have one that's *stronger* than the others or that really helps it all come together.

 

Don't chose based on fear. Just look at your dc and teach them. Look at them and teach them. :)

[boscopup]

I don't think you need to worry about it unless you start seeing problems with the materials you're using and you notice that the child doesn't retain information presented in certain ways. My oldest can learn just about any old way, though he does learn best by reading as opposed to doing or hearing. He can learn from the other ways also, but he learns *most* from reading a book. So in my house, science gets done by reading library books instead of worrying about a bunch of hands-on projects, because DS1 picks up more from the reading. DS2 is a different critter and appears to be more on the VSL spectrum (my dad thinks in pictures, and I suspect this child does as well). He doesn't learn well by hands-on only though. It took me a while to figure out, but he does best with a combination of visual presented on a page and hands-on, and he does well with me reading a book to him that has pictures. After reading a Dr. Seuss book on the ocean, a few days later he drew a picture from memory of the layers of the ocean, complete with representative animals of each. We had read the book once or twice maybe? And he can't read it himself yet, but he can look at the pictures and study them. I don't know how he'll learn best long term - whether reading books will be a good input source for him or not, as he's not reading to learn yet, and it will probably be a couple years before he is (his older brother was reading to learn at this age, and his baby brother likely will be also, since he's already a beginner reader at age 3). Most curricula still work for DS2, despite him being "different". Most curricula cater to multiple modes of transferring information. I have learned, however, that a math program that is very manipulative heavy with little to no worksheets (Rightstart) is a bad fit for him. He learns better from something that has a textbook/workbook with pictorial presentation, and me adding in some C-rods for the hands-on component. Once I switched to that, his math skills went through the roof from where they were. He now has pictures of C-rods in his head and is learning his addition/subtraction facts easily because of that (we'll see how multiplication/division facts go... I may need to dig up something I downloaded that was temporarily free and had number stories). For writing, he does really well with a catchy phrase - like writing a number '2' is "Around and back on the railroad track... two, two, two!" from the R&S Counting With Numbers book. He didn't learn to even count to 10 until we did that little workbook. No amount of counting stairs or M&Ms or whatever was helping him learn to count. He needed to see it on a page!

 

So you'll discover things as you teach your kids. I don't think you need to do special tests unless you are having problems finding a method that works for your kid. If what you are using now is working, then great! No problem. Don't worry about it. :)

[boscopup]

Btw, despite being a visual learner, I have no 3-d spatial skills; I visualize WORDS, not three-dimensional structures, and I am a highly sequential learner.

 

 

Interesting! My sister also visualizes words. We were talking about how we think one day, and I hear words in my head, my oldest has a combination of hearing words and seeing pictures (mostly hears words), my middle son probably sees pictures, and my sister said she sees printed words. It didn't surprise me, as she has always been a strange one in the family. :D Actually, she's highly intelligent (probably higher IQ than my brother and myself), very well read, good at math and anything else she does. Anyway, in reading about VSLs, I haven't come across anyone ever mentioning thinking in printed words. You're the first person, since my sister, that I've seen say they did that. Very cool! I wonder how common that is.

[Tress]

 

 

Interesting! My sister also visualizes words. We were talking about how we think one day, and I hear words in my head, my oldest has a combination of hearing words and seeing pictures (mostly hears words), my middle son probably sees pictures, and my sister said she sees printed words. It didn't surprise me, as she has always been a strange one in the family. :D Actually, she's highly intelligent (probably higher IQ than my brother and myself), very well read, good at math and anything else she does. Anyway, in reading about VSLs, I haven't come across anyone ever mentioning thinking in printed words. You're the first person, since my sister, that I've seen say they did that. Very cool! I wonder how common that is.

 

Evidence by random strangers on the internet doesn't count for much, of course, but I also visualize words :D.

[Corraleno]

I was a bit stunned by the research that says there's no such thing as learning styles.

 

All of those links posted above are opinion pieces (not research) by people who don't believe in learning styles. Even the small number of studies they cite do not "prove" there's no such thing as learning styles. It's hard to get access to the actual research (without paying $10-12 for a PDF), but the studies I have seen that purport to show that learning styles are a "myth" were very poorly designed.

 

A bunch of college freshmen in an Intro Pysch class are asked to fill out questionnaires about preferred learning style and then take a not-very-sophisticated test showing where their actual strengths were, and there is a very poor match — many students tested stronger in an area that was not their preferred one. What does that prove, other than that a bunch of college freshmen weren't very good at self-diagnosis? How about testing 1000 engineering students and 1000 English Lit majors, using detailed, nationally normed psychological testing, and then testing how well they learn using their "dominant" mode versus their least effective mode?

 

I've also read a study (the actual paper, not a summary on someone's blog), where elementary students were divided into sections based on what the teacher thought their learning style would be, and then they were taught using that mode, and then they were tested. There was no significant difference in test scores between students who were taught "normally" and those whose instruction was tailored to their learning style. There are so many things wrong with this research design it would be funny if it weren't so pathetic: poor-to-useless assessment of learning styles to begin with, and the teachers' ideas of how to cater to the different types of learners was beyond lame and focused more on output than input (let's read about the Pilgrims and then you can do an interpretive dance, OK?). IMHO, all that study proved is that crap teaching is crap teaching, whether it's based on "learning styles" or not.

 

I have no doubt that the way most public schools have defined and implemented the concept of learning styles is ineffective. Why would we expect otherwise??? Does the failure of discovery-based math in PS mean discovery-based math is ineffective? AOPS would prove otherwise. Does the failure of NCLB mean that the concept of "no child left behind" is pointless? No, it just means that "educational specialists" and bureaucrats can screw up pretty much anything.

 

End rant. :tongue_smilie:

 

Jackie

[*Lulu*]

 

 

Interesting! My sister also visualizes words. We were talking about how we think one day, and I hear words in my head, my oldest has a combination of hearing words and seeing pictures (mostly hears words), my middle son probably sees pictures, and my sister said she sees printed words. It didn't surprise me, as she has always been a strange one in the family. :D Actually, she's highly intelligent (probably higher IQ than my brother and myself), very well read, good at math and anything else she does. Anyway, in reading about VSLs, I haven't come across anyone ever mentioning thinking in printed words. You're the first person, since my sister, that I've seen say they did that. Very cool! I wonder how common that is.

 

 

When I recall information I have read I see it on the page in my mind. I am the same way with music; when I sing or play from memory I am seeing the printed music in my mind.

[AKshanmar]

Well, my family is definately living proof that there ARE learning styles. I am VERY visual. I can't understand it unless I read it. I take notes, and then can remember things based on having written them down. My kids were 5-12 when we started homeschooling. I had them read and take notes... and then spent a lot of time being disgusted that they seemed to have absorbed, well, nothing. They couldn't sit still. I can't focus if I am doing anything else, so I was sure this was a problem and tried to squelch it.

 

This went on the first 2 years.

 

At a homeschool conference, I listened to a spectacular speaker, whose name I can't remember. His most memorable quote to me, was about and interaction with his wife, when she told him to be still and listen to her. His answer was "I can't hear you when I am still." He recommended a quick learning style test at the website www.howtolearn.com. All six of us took the test. I was 85%visual. My husband and the 4 kids were all basically 40%auditory and 40%kinestetic (why isn't the spell check working for me!?) I have to say, that I actually cried. How would I teach them?!

 

But, I changed things up. We had a gym bar in the living room, and rolling chairs. I read and read and read to them, while they did this and that. I tried to encourage things that didn't drive me crazy, like coloring & knitting. But we had the BEST year. They were LEARNING!

 

That was my experience.

 

That being said, at 5 it is hard to determine learning style...I would just do what you are doing, and go from there.

[LMD]

Evidence by random strangers on the internet doesn't count for much, of course, but I also visualize words :D.

 

 

Me too.

 

My DH says that he pictures the word like a shape. Which is why he'll often make spelling mistakes, because the letters may be wrong but the shape looks right!

[Reya]

I have two strong visual learners, one more than the other, and I am a visual learner myself. How can I tell?

Despite strong verbal skills, memorization via reciting will not work; the times tables or french conjugations have to be seen on a poster in order to be retained. I can quickly memorize large amounts of names if I see them written on name tags or class lists; I am unable to remember names of people who introduce themselves orally...

 

 

That is called being a normal person with competent reading abilities. If you are illiterate, of course you aren't "visual." It has been long understood that reading is much more effective than speaking for getting large amounts of info across and getting them to be retained. This is why professors, when they lecture, want you to do the reading BEFORE class, not after, and spend a great deal of time on a minority of information in the chapter. That is why no math professor ever teaches math to anyone without spending a great deal of time writing or going over pre-written slides.

 

Of course this will be useless to an illiterate person. But that's not the point. Later teaching depends on earlier learning. A 4-year-old doesn't go from being "auditory" to becoming "visual" because she learns to read over the course of four years. She simply gains new skills that allows for more effective education.

 

Good teaching is good teaching, period.

[Reya]

 

Me too.

 

My DH says that he pictures the word like a shape. Which is why he'll often make spelling mistakes, because the letters may be wrong but the shape looks right!

 

 

He didn't get enough phonics instruction. It's a remnant of a pedagogical failure.

[LMD]

 

He didn't get enough phonics instruction. It's a remnant of a pedagogical failure.

 

He certainly didn't. He is a good and voracious reader though, reading quality literature, for some reason the spelling doesn't stick. He says he doesn't look at the individual letters but the whole shape of a word and basically guesses. Thankfully he now has a wife and a 7 & 5 year old who can correct him :D

[regentrude]

Interesting! My sister also visualizes words. ... Anyway, in reading about VSLs, I haven't come across anyone ever mentioning thinking in printed words. You're the first person, since my sister, that I've seen say they did that. Very cool! I wonder how common that is.

 

I would not say that I am thinking in printed words- more that I am reading the words off an inner screen. I can still visualize whole pages from my college notes and see for example certain important theorems in my notes in the left lower corner of a page, in a red box. When I memorize music, I can see the sheet music in front of my inner eye. I see the names of my students as words when I memorize them. I am rotten at spelling bees where I have to spell out the word orally without the chance to write it down, but I have perfect spelling when I can see the words while I write or type.

 

But I would not say that I actually THINK in words.

[Reya]

All of those links posted above are opinion pieces (not research) by people who don't believe in learning styles. Even the small number of studies they cite do not "prove" there's no such thing as learning styles. It's hard to get access to the actual research (without paying $10-12 for a PDF), but the studies I have seen that purport to show that learning styles are a "myth" were very poorly designed.

 

There are ZERO studies showing any existence of "learning styles." NONE. Do you want researchers to prove a negative? Research does not work that way. Such a thing is impossible.

 

It is up to learning-style theorists to prove that there are such a thing a learning styles. Every attempt has ended with failure. If the same information is presented in auditory and visual formats and people are prescreened ahead of time and "matched" to their supposedly stronger channel, there is NO IMPROVEMENT over random assignment, and in fact the version that is better is better for everybody, regardless of their supposed "style."

[Corraleno]

There are ZERO studies showing any existence of "learning styles." NONE. Do you want researchers to prove a negative? Research does not work that way. Such a thing is impossible.

 

It is up to learning-style theorists to prove that there are such a thing a learning styles. Every attempt has ended with failure. If the same information is presented in auditory and visual formats and people are prescreened ahead of time and "matched" to their supposedly stronger channel, there is NO IMPROVEMENT over random assignment, and in fact the version that is better is better for everybody, regardless of their supposed "style."

 

The studies I have read that purported to "disprove" the existence of learning styles all had methodological issues: a self-selected sample that would tend to exclude VSLs (like Intro Psych classes); catagorizing and assessing "learning styles" in an extremely shallow & oversimplified way, etc. There is a ton of research in cognitive science, neurology, and other areas that point to significant differences in brain wiring between "left brain" learners and "right brain learners," but they may not use the term "learning styles," so those studies don't show up in a quick google search. Brock & Fernette Eide are neurologists who have worked extensively with kids who are highly gifted but do not respond well to standard pedogogical techniques, usually due to being at the far end of the VSL spectrum, and they cite extensive research to back up their work.

 

It is a FACT that some people think in 3D moving images, not words — you don't think that effects how they absorb, store, and retrieve information??? :confused:

 

I find it amusing that you are so adamant that something I see in practice every single day doesn't exist. But then, several of DH's teachers in school insisted there was no such thing as dyslexia (he was just being lazy), our GP in England insisted there's no such thing as ADD (just spoiled American kids), and my FIL insisted there was no evidence that smoking is bad for you (right up to the day he had his stroke). <shrug>

 

Jackie

[forty-two]

One of the cognitive scientists who doesn't believe evidence currently exists to support the idea of learning styles believes most of the visible preferences are primarily a matter of ability than style (here's his brief FAQ on what he thinks: http://www.danielwillingham.com/learning-styles-faq.html). So it's not a visual-spatial *style*, but visual-spatial *ability* (sometimes paired with a relative weakness in auditory and/or sequential ability, sometimes not).

[Corraleno]

One of the cognitive scientists who doesn't believe evidence currently exists to support the idea of learning styles believes most of the visible preferences are primarily a matter of ability than style (here's his brief FAQ on what he thinks: http://www.danielwil...styles-faq.html). So it's not a visual-spatial *style*, but visual-spatial *ability* (sometimes paired with a relative weakness in auditory and/or sequential ability, sometimes not).

I find that a very odd distinction. :confused1:

 

If he's defining "learning style" in such a way that it only counts if it's merely a "preference," and not a reflection of underlying differences in ability, then I'm not sure I see the point in studying "learning styles" at all. Is it then just a matter of asking students which they'd "prefer" to do — read a book or watch a documentary or do an experiment?

 

What I mean by "learning style" is absolutely based on differences in ability. My DH and DS score extremely high on the visual & spatial components of IQ tests, much lower on verbal tasks, and they both learn, retain, and retrieve information about 1000% better if it's presented visually. My DS can still provide detailed information about a documentary he watched 5 years ago — he can just pull it up and re-visualize it in his mind — but he really really struggles to retain information that he reads — especially if the information does not conjure up images in his head as he reads.

 

Jackie

[Corraleno]

Here is a quote from a study linked on the blog linked by forty-two:

 

FROM THE STUDY:

The more someone looked like a “verbalizer†on the questionnaire, the more likely they were to show increased activity in “verbal†parts of their brain (left Supramarginal gyrus) when they were presented with simple pictures. The more someone looked like a “visualizer†on the questionnaire, the more likely they were to show increased activity in “visual†parts of their brain (fusiform gyrus) when they were presented with words.

 

BLOGGER'S COMMENT:

It’s not controversial that some people are better with words and some with images/space. People know what their proclivity is. What’s new in this experiment is showing that, given the chance people will translate from the less- preferred to the more preferred representation.

 

What was not emphasized in the paper was that subjects did not score any better on trials that matched their preferred modality than trials that did not. That is, you would expect that verbalizers would be faster and more accurate when doing the all-words trials, and visualizers would be faster and more accurate when doing the all-pictures trials. But they weren’t.

 

The results of this experiment might be of some interest to cognitive neuroscientists, as it indicates that people may have enduring strategies that they use on different tasks, and that they can tell you something about these strategies. There is not much here for educators, however. This is another example of a learning style distinction that does not help predict when people will find a task more or less difficult.

 

So, this study confirms wiring differences between "visualizers" and "verbalizers," but concluded that those wiring differences did not significantly impact performance.

 

I have 2 issues with the latter conclusion:

 

(1) The task these students were given was a totally artificial one lasting a few minutes. Proving that students could perform this artificial task in both their dominant and nondominant modes, under artificial laboratory conditions, when they only had to focus on this one thing for a short period of time, does not necessarily apply to daily life. So even if the "visual" and "verbal" students had similar scores on preferred and nonpreferred tasks, that isn't necessarily going to translate to getting through a semester of Organic Chem or learning a foreign language.

 

(2) The simplistic division into "visualizers" and "verbalizers" can obscure significant underlying differences. For example, Regentrude mentioned that she is a visual learner who needs to see things to remember them, but that she's not very good at spatial tasks. She's also (obviously!) verbally gifted. My DH & DS are visual and spatial, but do poorly on verbal tasks. They think in 3d moving images, not words, and they both struggle to translate those images into words (and vice versa). And yet both they and Regentrude would be characterized (by the cited study) as "visualizers." (Not to mention the fact that extreme visual-spatial students are less likely to be participating in those kinds of studies to begin with.)

 

Another thing that these sorts of studies don't measure is how much harder students have to work in a mode that is not their dominant one. If you start with a population that probably already excludes most extreme VSLs, and then you find that even those with a "visual preference" learn just fine with totally verbal methods, you may be demonstrating, not that learning styles don't exist, but rather that many visual learners have had to learn how how to adapt and compensate — and the ones who didn't, aren't in college, so they're automatically excluded from these studies.

 

Jackie

[PeacefulChaos]

There are ZERO studies showing any existence of "learning styles." NONE. Do you want researchers to prove a negative? Research does not work that way. Such a thing is impossible. It is up to learning-style theorists to prove that there are such a thing a learning styles. Every attempt has ended with failure. If the same information is presented in auditory and visual formats and people are prescreened ahead of time and "matched" to their supposedly stronger channel, there is NO IMPROVEMENT over random assignment, and in fact the version that is better is better for everybody, regardless of their supposed "style."

 

I find this point of view interesting.

It makes sense to me that people would have methods of learning which suit them better. Just like they have different personalities.

I'm also thinking about kids. For example, Astro did terrible with Saxon Math. Flashcards and carp. :ack2: He didn't retain a thing. We pretty much wasted a year on math. He needed to see it more concretely (we now use Math U See), to have his hands on it and see the way it works, etc. Obviously he's just one kid. But I've heard that sort of thing from lots of people - kids learning better based on the way the information is taught. My BIL couldn't read til he was 8 and a tutor had him trace the letters/words with his finger as he read them. Then - poof! - he caught up with his peers and loves to read today.

I know it's all anecdotal, and that overall that doesn't mean anything. But I have to admit that I have a really hard time believing that people all learn the same way. We aren't all the same - why would we learn the same way?

 

Oh, and to the OP - while I don't necessarily believe learning styles don't exist, I don't think they're super-important, either. I don't know what my kids' learning styles are. I don't even know what mine is! :) So I wouldn't worry about it - if you want more info, by all means look into it, but if not, no big deal. I think as time passes you will find stuff that works for your daughter the best, and that's what you'll use. :)

[ElizaG]

For example, Astro did terrible with Saxon Math. Flashcards and carp. :ack2: He didn't retain a thing. We pretty much wasted a year on math. He needed to see it more concretely (we now use Math U See), to have his hands on it and see the way it works, etc. Obviously he's just one kid. But I've heard that sort of thing from lots of people - kids learning better based on the way the information is taught. My BIL couldn't read til he was 8 and a tutor had him trace the letters/words with his finger as he read them. Then - poof! - he caught up with his peers and loves to read today.

But isn't it possible that these methods worked better for these children simply because they're more effective ways to teach the parts of the curriculum that they were struggling with, and it's just that most of the children were able to learn these things in spite of the other, inferior methods?

 

From what I've read, this is what the researchers who don't believe in learning styles are saying. Not that everyone should learn everything through one modality, but that different modalities are better for different types of material, for everyone.

 

Using concrete manipulatives for math, and having the child trace letters with his finger, both come straight from Montessori. She settled on these after years of observation of how the young children in her classes actually learned. Her method (when applied according to her principles, not in the watered-down versions that are common these days in the US) has been very successful for educating large groups of children, without having any concept of "learning styles."

[Corraleno]

But isn't it possible that these methods worked better for these children simply because they're more effective ways to teach the parts of the curriculum that they were struggling with, and it's just that most of the children were able to learn these things in spite of the other, inferior methods?

 

From what I've read, this is what the researchers who don't believe in learning styles are saying. Not that everyone should learn everything through one modality, but that different modalities are better for different types of material, for everyone.

 

If this were true, though, then MUS and manipulatives would work best for everyone, when in fact there are some kids who don't get MUS at all, but thrive with Saxon.

 

Using concrete manipulatives for math, and having the child trace letters with his finger, both come straight from Montessori. She settled on these after years of observation of how the young children in her classes actually learned. Her method (when applied according to her principles, not in the watered-down versions that are common these days in the US) has been very successful for educating large groups of children, without having any concept of "learning styles."

 

Montessori methods are great for some kids, but not for everyone. I used to work in a Montessori school, and both my kids spent several years in an excellent private school — DD from age 3 to 1st grade, DS from 1st-3rd grade. Even though the presentation is very visual and hands-on, it's also very parts-to-whole, and my DS just did not get anywhere in math or reading when he was there. In fact, he regressed in a lot of ways — he was ahead of grade level when he first enrolled (in January of 1st grade), and by the end of 2nd grade he was considerably below grade level. By the end of 3rd grade, he was so far behind that the teacher and I agreed he needed to repeat 3rd grade. And this is a great teacher, who has won teaching awards, and who absolutely adored DS. The method just didn't work with him.

 

My DD, who is a very different kind of learner from DS, didn't get very far either, because she needs more explicit, rule-based instruction and less play-based learning. And I saw the same things when I was a teacher myself: some kids learn really well the Montessori way, and some kids just don't do well — sometimes for completely opposite reasons.

 

Jackie

[ElizaG]

If this were true, though, then MUS and manipulatives would work best for everyone, when in fact there are some kids who don't get MUS at all, but thrive with Saxon.

 

A subject like math is made up of many different skills and concepts, though. Saxon or MUS might be excellent for teaching some of these, but not so good for others. Because all of our children have varying strengths and weaknesses -- such that they don't all need the very best teaching in every area in order to comprehend the material -- it seems likely that different homeschool curricula would work better for different children.

 

Montessori methods are great for some kids, but not for everyone. I used to work in a Montessori school, and both my kids spent several years in an excellent private school — DD from age 3 to 1st grade, DS from 1st-3rd grade. Even though the presentation is very visual and hands-on, it's also very parts-to-whole, and my DS just did not get anywhere in math or reading when he was there. In fact, he regressed in a lot of ways — he was ahead of grade level when he first enrolled (in January of 1st grade), and by the end of 2nd grade he was considerably below grade level.

 

That's interesting -- I'm pretty sure most schools around here won't take elementary students without previous Montessori experience. I think the curriculum can be hard to jump into, which calls for extra sensitivity on the part of the teacher. And not all teachers, even fully trained ones, can do this. Most are fair-to-middling -- as are most teachers of any method -- and they do reasonably well with typical children in typical situations, but tend to flop with some types of special needs and circumstances.

 

It was hard enough for my children when they started a year or two late into Primary. They were above "grade level," but this wasn't always obvious, and of course they had to start at the beginning. The method allows for adapting the pace and style of the presentations for special situations, but the teachers they had didn't seem to know how to do this, or more likely they just weren't observing the children carefully enough to figure out what they could do. One child in particular was spending months "learning" things that had been mastered at home the previous year. For this and other reasons, I ended up taking them out. And this was at an accredited school, with an excellent reputation.

 

But the method has worked very well for us at home, within my very limited ability to find the space, time, and (most of all) patience for it.

[Staceyshoe]

I'm in a rush and haven't read all the responses.

 

With my oldest, I tried and tried to figure out his learning style. He got a psycho-educational evaluation, and that was one of my questions. The psychologist laughed and told me that I couldn't figure it out because he didn't really have a preference for learning one way over another. (His scores had just one point of difference.) He doesn't really have a learning style, and so there's no need for me to know.

 

My youngest has a *strong* preference for visual learning. It is important for me to know this. When I was trying to teach him using auditory methods, he just didn't get it. In the past couple of months, he has shown progress in his ability to learn auditory information. But he still learns far better when information is presented visually. Before I understood his preference, we wasted a lot of time and he was very frustrated.