"All You Need to Know About the ‘Learning Styles’ Myth, in Two Minutes"
This article appeared in Wired magazine today. I thought it was interesting because it put me in mind of a comment that was made to me on this forum today. It seems that students expect their lessons to be custom-tailored to their liking, but that there is no evidence that this is an effective teaching technique. I'd like to hear your comments on this.
"Education has taken place pretty much the same way for at least 5,000 years."---Eddie
What you wrote to Julia is entirely false. In the last 100 years there have been staggering innovations.
Starting with Telegraph, the technology for Education has progressed through the Light Bulb,
Movies and Films, and Wireless Radio Exponential advancements in speaks and headphones and microphones, to Digital Video and Digital Audio Technologies, and the additional developments of Computers and Keyboards to replace the Typewriter.
FAX machines, and personal body cameras, to Laser Pointers to Satellite Communications.
CD's for audio devices and DVD's for audio visual study, are all innovations.
The Internet today permits speakers of a language to teach a student of the language on the other side of the world by direct phone call with Video Camera. Most of that was never available even 75 years ago. Your understanding of Education in the modern world is entirely askew.
The Wired article cites a diagram of something written by "Sacha Chua"; but the magazine article fails to show that Sacha Chua has not had success in language study. The article informs readers as follows:
"Learning Styles – a hugely popular idea that simply isn’t supported by psychological science."-----http://www.wired.com/2015/01/need-know-learning-styles-myth-two-minutes/
The general love and kindness of human beings worldwide, is not
SUPPORTED BY PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE either. That does not mean that people worldwide do not show love and kindness.
Generalized statements like that are not demonstrative of any specific fact.
Basically, the entire article, per its claims and conclusions, is intended to rob invidual students
of any decision making ability concerning their own development and personal improvement.
Human beings, historically, are highly innovative, self-sufficient, and creative to the extreme.
The presupposition that "psychological science" has been involved in all of human history to
"support" ideas and learning strategies is laughable as a proposition.
Neither is "Wired" magazin authoritative on Education. The magazine's editors must be very desperate for something to write about to publish a claim about something termed an "urban myth" and "burying" it. .
"This is the mistaken idea that we learn better when the instruction we receive is tailored to our preferred way of learning."---(the Wired Article)
The article is a mix of fact and fiction. Its claims are not factually substantiated
and the entire article is premised upon a term that is not specifically defined.
Where the article might have a definition for "learning styles" it does not show that all students adhere to a flawed "learning style". The article does have some credible referrences to ideas such as
Right Brain/Left Brain theory and so forth; but the article does not show that self-directed study is ineffective. Neither does the article show that any student's "learning style" is not a mix of
Self-Direction combined with formal instruction. Basically, the article is a mix of "bashing" people who try to escape the oppressive atmosphere of the Brick---And---Mortar schools, and and bashing any form of innovation.
For example, students who appear in Italki are implementing a "learning style" and nothing in the Wired article shows this to be an ineffective learning style.
Relax Bruce. You've been in attack mode since your first sentence. You've discredited the article, discredited me, and contributed nothing constructive. Stand down.
"Innovation can be the best way to solve a clearly identified problem. Innovation for its own sake, not supported by need, can be a problem in itself.
I agree with the professor who, in the beginning of the article said, "I learn by doing." We learn to speak by speaking, not by watching YouTube videos."---Eddie
#1 You failed to show that students of language are not operating on the basis of NEED.
#2 You failee to show that your agreement with the professor who said that "I learn by doing." suffices for an objective proof of anything.
#3 You have no objective data, and neither does the Wired article, factually showing that students do not "learn" by watching YouTube (or other) Videos. Audio-Visual materials of all kinds have been employed all over the world to facilitate language learning.
Unless of course you have objective data showing that:
(A) Students do not operate on the basis of NEED.
(B) Pronunciation and Speaking exercises are never conducted in association with
audio-visual study aids
(C) Watching Videos and Hearing Audio tracts prohibit SPEECH.
If you have no objective data which supports your conclusions, you have no credible argument.