Willingham: No evidence exists for learning style theories
Daniel Willingham, Washington Post, December 29, 2009.

Daniel Willingham offers a very light response to blog criticisms of his attack on learning styles. "One can never prove a negative," he writes. "Learning styles might exist. So might the Loch Ness monster and the Yeti." Of course this is not true. You can prove negatives: no number less than zero is greater than four; no person currently in New York City is currently in France; there are no dogs in my living room. In response to another criticism, he writes, "Shouldn't it be obvious whether or not people have learning styles?" My response: yes. They do. That's why you don't teach blind people with printed text. Finally, he says, "If you can't write down on a piece of paper, 'under conditions X with person Y, Z ought to happen,' it's not a scientific theory it [learning styles] is not a scientific theory." Fair enough. But you don't use an MRI to recommend bloodletting strategies, and you shouldn't use learning styles to recommend direct instruction strategies. (Hits Today: 0 Total: 1859) [Direct Link] [Tags: Learning Styles, Web Logs, Online Learning]

Share |

Comments

Re: Willingham: No evidence exists for learning style theories

Anymouse, December 29, 2009

Information on Learning Styles saved my academic live. I went to university at 16 and dropped out at 17. I was convinced I was stupid because I hated my classes so intensely and wasn't learning anything. I went back at 40 after realizing that I was highly visual and needed to take notes/mindmap in lectures. I graduated with a Masters degree with honours. I still rarely remember what I hear and was one of the first people to buy a SmartPen for meetings. [Comment] [Permalink] [Previous][Next]

Re: Willingham: No evidence exists for learning style theories

Nick_Kearney, December 29, 2009

I was under the impression that blind people read a lot. The dots that make up Braille are still effectively printed text. I would also question whether this kind of example constitutes a "style". You seem to use the example frequently, which is why I mention it. I would be more interested in knowing why anymouse above was ever helped in school with the difficulties he or she had with listening. The focus, when discussing learning styles, seems to me to be on catering TO styles, rather than examining how to help people with difficulties. To function in society it is arguably more necessary to develop the styles we dont have. [Comment] [Permalink] [Previous][Next]

Comment



Title
Your comment:
Enter email to receive replies:

Your comments always remain your property, but in posting them here you agree to license under the same terms as this site (CC By-NC-SA). If your comment is offensive it will be deleted.

Automated Spam-checking is in effect. If you are a registered user you may submit links and other HTML. Anonymous users cannot post links and will have their content screened - certain words are prohibited and your comment will be analyzed to make sure it makes sense.