Learning Styles are the different ways in which people learn. There are several different styles, which include visual (spatial), aural (auditory-musical), verbal (linguistic), physical (kinesthetic), logical (mathematical), social (interpersonal), and solitary (intrapersonal). Until, I read the article Learning Styles by Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer and Bjork my hypothesis was the most common hypothesis they discussed. They said, “The most common – but not the only – hypothesis about the instructional relevance of learning styles is the meshing hypothesis, according to which instruction is best provided in a format that matches the preferences of the learner (e.g., for a ‘‘visual learner,’’ emphasizing visual presentation of information).” (Pahler, 2009, pg. 105) I believed since everyone was different and we all learn in different ways that best instruction for us was the instruction that went along with our particular learning style.
However, Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer and Bjork conducted an in-depth examination of several different studies that dealt with learning-styles-based instruction. They only found a few fragmentary and unconvincing pieces of evidence that met the standards. They concluded that the literature failed to provide adequate support for applying learning-style assessment in school settings. They even found several studies that contradicted the learning-styles hypothesis.
While I was looking for resources I came across this video that I found very interesting. Even though they did a very through review of several studies and they have proof, I still have a hard time believing that tailoring instruction to each individual student is not a benefit. How would they explain this school? I also thought to myself that I would really enjoy going to that school and felt I should share this with the class.
Multiple Intelligences Thrive in Smartville
References
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2009). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9, 105-119.
Thank you for posting this. I am really surprised to see Howard Gardner endorsing the video (although I'm not sure that he knew what he was doing). I see potential harm in using the term "smarts" to identify a student's strengths. Note how students use those terms themselves. Might we be encouraging a fixed view of intelligence? (More on this when we read Dweck in Module 6). I would really like to revisit this issue together as a class. Thanks for bringing it up. (Still, looks like an interesting school!)
ReplyDelete