10 ms·

I have to disagree a bit here. It's true that the system has worked for many people, but you can not tell me that it's perfect. There are multiple styles of le

by t3f 11y ago

I have to disagree a bit here. It's true that the system has worked for many people, but you can not tell me that it's perfect. There are multiple styles of learning and comprehension that each individual is predisposed to. It's possible that this school has found another teaching style that improves on that model. It is encouraging that a school system is willing to allow it's educators to work with changing that model and adapting to better suit their population. Perhaps this design isn't the best for X% of the students in the class, but maybe it reaches more students in the class as a whole? The article is pretty light on detail, so i'm completely speculating on my own here.

DickingAround 11y ago
I think the argument he's making isn't that it's perfect but instead that this logic doesn't hold. Old techniques are not inherently bad. They're only bad if we actually did discover something new in the meantime. In this case I think we have learned since then, but the article doesn't say that; it just says the old stuff is old and thus bad.
eitally 11y ago
The multiple learning styles theory has been largely debunked. https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/edu-a0037478.pdf https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/edu-a0037478.pdf http://www.wired.com/2015/01/need-know-learning-styles-myth-two-minutes/ http://www.wired.com/2015/01/need-know-learning-styles-myth-... http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/finding_common_ground/2014/04/the_myth_of_learning_styles.html http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/finding_common_ground/2014/04... http://www.educatorstechnology.com/2013/12/the-myth-of-learning-styles-debunked.html http://www.educatorstechnology.com/2013/12/the-myth-of-learn... http://psi.sagepub.com/content/9/3/105.abstract http://psi.sagepub.com/content/9/3/105.abstract and I particularly like the concluding paragraph of this article: http://anniemurphypaul.com/2013/10/forget-about-learning-styles-heres-something-better/ http://anniemurphypaul.com/2013/10/forget-about-learning-sty...
- setpatchaddress 11y ago
  Boy, I don't. I find it repulsive. I'm naturally a "deep learner" by that classification system, but the author of that blog seems to be implying that everyone has a choice in the matter, which does not match my observations. If it's actually true that people can be divided into those categories, it would be interesting to look more deeply, to understand why people differ in this way. Otherwise, you're just pointing at yourself and saying "look how smart I am!"

by t3f 11y ago

DickingAround 11y ago

I think the argument he's making isn't that it's perfect but instead that this logic doesn't hold. Old techniques are not inherently bad. They're only bad if we actually did discover something new in the meantime. In this case I think we have learned since then, but the article doesn't say that; it just says the old stuff is old and thus bad.

eitally 11y ago

The multiple learning styles theory has been largely debunked. https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/edu-a0037478.pdf https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/edu-a0037478.pdf http://www.wired.com/2015/01/need-know-learning-styles-myth-two-minutes/ http://www.wired.com/2015/01/need-know-learning-styles-myth-... http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/finding_common_ground/2014/04/the_myth_of_learning_styles.html http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/finding_common_ground/2014/04... http://www.educatorstechnology.com/2013/12/the-myth-of-learning-styles-debunked.html http://www.educatorstechnology.com/2013/12/the-myth-of-learn... http://psi.sagepub.com/content/9/3/105.abstract http://psi.sagepub.com/content/9/3/105.abstract and I particularly like the concluding paragraph of this article: http://anniemurphypaul.com/2013/10/forget-about-learning-styles-heres-something-better/ http://anniemurphypaul.com/2013/10/forget-about-learning-sty...

setpatchaddress 11y ago
Boy, I don't. I find it repulsive. I'm naturally a "deep learner" by that classification system, but the author of that blog seems to be implying that everyone has a choice in the matter, which does not match my observations. If it's actually true that people can be divided into those categories, it would be interesting to look more deeply, to understand why people differ in this way. Otherwise, you're just pointing at yourself and saying "look how smart I am!"