4 ms·

I agree with a lot of this, disagree with "multichannel" bit. The idea of "learning styles" is dead in the field of psychology and the advice isn't actionable i

by robax 8y ago

I agree with a lot of this, disagree with "multichannel" bit. The idea of "learning styles" is dead in the field of psychology and the advice isn't actionable in the context of a presentation or meeting anyway (how does your average powerpoint aid these supposed "kinesthetic" learners?"). I'd never heard of back-briefing but see that as something my company could benefit from, however. So thanks for that!

mistrial9 8y ago
it may not be fashionable in the field of psychology currently to acknowledge "learning styles" but.. "is dead" seems to say "we can prove this does not exist" .. the strongest possible statement about it, in the field of psychology... psychology is accepted as a science, I guess, but really.. the mind is a massive thing.. which mind ? the one that responds when you drop a weight on your foot ? the one that responds after talking to a dear friend ? really.. this is so closed minded..
- anoncoward111 8y ago
  I agree with you so much. I am the type of person that doesn't learn easily from a book. I need to put my hands on something and write it out and listen to it. Reading it is nearly meaningless to me.
- sdenton4 8y ago
  Well, a study kicked off the area of inquiry, and after years of work, the base studies failed to replicate. Once you throw away rigor, you're no longer a scientist.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
beyonddream 8y ago
“The idea of "learning styles" is dead in the field of psychology” - can you point some reference or research supporting this claim ?
- alxlaz 8y ago
  See e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5366351/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5366351/ , which cites several of the papers that put the last few nails in the coffin. It also inventories the somewhat depressing situation we're currently in. Learning styles are an oversimplified theory that many serious psychologists had suspected to be bollocks for more than twenty years, if not more. However, it's simple enough that it was easy to adopt by large companies and resource- (and knowledge-)constrained HR departments, which is why it's still given a lot of attention in these circles. In 2009, the APS conducted a fairly comprehensive (by psychology standards, at least...) of the existing literature ( http://steinhardtapps.es.its.nyu.edu/create/courses/2174/reading/Pashler_et_al_PSPI_9_3.pdf http://steinhardtapps.es.its.nyu.edu/create/courses/2174/rea... ) and unsurprisingly found that all except one of the very few studies on the subject that actually had a proper methodology had negative findings. Its conclusion was that there was no adequate evidence base to justify incorporating learning styles assessments into general educational practice. In short: it is not, and never was, a viable scientific theory, and no serious scientist is treating it as such anymore.
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    Skimming, that paper says there's no support for it, rather than there being evidence to falsify the idea that different people learn better in different ways. I seem to learn best when I write stuff down; I've assumed this wasn't true for everyone. Presumably a basic test like presenting new subjects to a group in 3 different ways (lecture, reading material, activity -- say) and test the group, see if subject matter uptake is identical in each case. Could someone link that, it seems to be like the first thing you'd test? 94% of UK teachers think their pupils learn better through individualised learning methods (according to your first link), but you contend their belief is false ... even though there's no formalised support (again according to the link) why do you think teachers feel there is. Surely they see a portion of their pupils are giving better responses if they present knowledge in one way vs another? Any thoughts on how nearly all teachers are mislead in this way? It also says, roughly, a third say they'll continue to present according to personalised methodologies even if there's no evidence (yet!) to support that pedagogy. That seems natural; if something appears to work when you do it, even if someone else has no evidence that it works you'll keep doing it. So which method of information is best for all people, as the contention is this isn't variable: all people learn best by ...? (hearing, seeing, taking part, watching, ...)?
bick_nyers 8y ago
I don't have any research to support this claim (unless you consider anecdotal, n=1 as evidence), but I believe that "learning styles" exist, just that they are relatively dynamic and more specific than just "kinesthetic". If you take learning in and of itself, it requires connecting new ideas to pre-existing ideas. If you present something to an individual that is distant to their current understandings, then of course it will be difficult to understand. You need to learn how to walk before you learn how to run. If you take that concept and sum it over their entire learning background, you get two effects: 1. People that get an early lead/intuition in specific fields/topics/skills tend to keep building on similar fields/topics/skills. Kids that are good at math/comouters early on are more likely to pursue STEM in University. The skill is compounding in this way. 2. Specialization in a field/topic/skill (let's use a Math Bachelor's for example) requires that individual to learn/solve problems broadly inside of a narrow domain. Those narrow domains (math) have inherent skills that need to be built (logic, pigeonholing, building on top of root ideas, abstraction, etc.), as well as some supplementary skills that are often developed but not necessarily critical (visualization, fact checking, re-organization, etc.). These skills can be thought of as "learning styles". If you know a Math Major that is strong at visualizing geometry, then describing a mechanical reaction to them would be easier if you simplify the structure to it's simplest level (they don't need to hear about all the fillets you have to smooth sharp edges), and describe the reaction. In that methodology, you can skip all of the engineering terminology you may otherwise use and nail down the representation that they need to think about the problem. In that way I believe that "learning styles" exist, it just requires case-by-case understanding. This likely plays a role in the numerous benefits reaped through smaller class sizes.

by robax 8y ago

mistrial9 8y ago

it may not be fashionable in the field of psychology currently to acknowledge "learning styles" but.. "is dead" seems to say "we can prove this does not exist" .. the strongest possible statement about it, in the field of psychology... psychology is accepted as a science, I guess, but really.. the mind is a massive thing.. which mind ? the one that responds when you drop a weight on your foot ? the one that responds after talking to a dear friend ? really.. this is so closed minded..

anoncoward111 8y ago
I agree with you so much. I am the type of person that doesn't learn easily from a book. I need to put my hands on something and write it out and listen to it. Reading it is nearly meaningless to me.
sdenton4 8y ago
Well, a study kicked off the area of inquiry, and after years of work, the base studies failed to replicate. Once you throw away rigor, you're no longer a scientist.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

beyonddream 8y ago

“The idea of "learning styles" is dead in the field of psychology” - can you point some reference or research supporting this claim ?

alxlaz 8y ago
See e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5366351/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5366351/ , which cites several of the papers that put the last few nails in the coffin. It also inventories the somewhat depressing situation we're currently in. Learning styles are an oversimplified theory that many serious psychologists had suspected to be bollocks for more than twenty years, if not more. However, it's simple enough that it was easy to adopt by large companies and resource- (and knowledge-)constrained HR departments, which is why it's still given a lot of attention in these circles. In 2009, the APS conducted a fairly comprehensive (by psychology standards, at least...) of the existing literature ( http://steinhardtapps.es.its.nyu.edu/create/courses/2174/reading/Pashler_et_al_PSPI_9_3.pdf http://steinhardtapps.es.its.nyu.edu/create/courses/2174/rea... ) and unsurprisingly found that all except one of the very few studies on the subject that actually had a proper methodology had negative findings. Its conclusion was that there was no adequate evidence base to justify incorporating learning styles assessments into general educational practice. In short: it is not, and never was, a viable scientific theory, and no serious scientist is treating it as such anymore.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  Skimming, that paper says there's no support for it, rather than there being evidence to falsify the idea that different people learn better in different ways. I seem to learn best when I write stuff down; I've assumed this wasn't true for everyone. Presumably a basic test like presenting new subjects to a group in 3 different ways (lecture, reading material, activity -- say) and test the group, see if subject matter uptake is identical in each case. Could someone link that, it seems to be like the first thing you'd test? 94% of UK teachers think their pupils learn better through individualised learning methods (according to your first link), but you contend their belief is false ... even though there's no formalised support (again according to the link) why do you think teachers feel there is. Surely they see a portion of their pupils are giving better responses if they present knowledge in one way vs another? Any thoughts on how nearly all teachers are mislead in this way? It also says, roughly, a third say they'll continue to present according to personalised methodologies even if there's no evidence (yet!) to support that pedagogy. That seems natural; if something appears to work when you do it, even if someone else has no evidence that it works you'll keep doing it. So which method of information is best for all people, as the contention is this isn't variable: all people learn best by ...? (hearing, seeing, taking part, watching, ...)?

bick_nyers 8y ago

I don't have any research to support this claim (unless you consider anecdotal, n=1 as evidence), but I believe that "learning styles" exist, just that they are relatively dynamic and more specific than just "kinesthetic". If you take learning in and of itself, it requires connecting new ideas to pre-existing ideas. If you present something to an individual that is distant to their current understandings, then of course it will be difficult to understand. You need to learn how to walk before you learn how to run. If you take that concept and sum it over their entire learning background, you get two effects: 1. People that get an early lead/intuition in specific fields/topics/skills tend to keep building on similar fields/topics/skills. Kids that are good at math/comouters early on are more likely to pursue STEM in University. The skill is compounding in this way. 2. Specialization in a field/topic/skill (let's use a Math Bachelor's for example) requires that individual to learn/solve problems broadly inside of a narrow domain. Those narrow domains (math) have inherent skills that need to be built (logic, pigeonholing, building on top of root ideas, abstraction, etc.), as well as some supplementary skills that are often developed but not necessarily critical (visualization, fact checking, re-organization, etc.). These skills can be thought of as "learning styles". If you know a Math Major that is strong at visualizing geometry, then describing a mechanical reaction to them would be easier if you simplify the structure to it's simplest level (they don't need to hear about all the fillets you have to smooth sharp edges), and describe the reaction. In that methodology, you can skip all of the engineering terminology you may otherwise use and nail down the representation that they need to think about the problem. In that way I believe that "learning styles" exist, it just requires case-by-case understanding. This likely plays a role in the numerous benefits reaped through smaller class sizes.