Comments on: Carol Ann Tomlinson on Learning Styles http://whatworks.wholechildeducation.org/blog/learning-styles/ Sat, 04 Feb 2012 03:40:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: David V http://whatworks.wholechildeducation.org/blog/learning-styles/comment-page-1/#comment-7325 David V Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:04:16 +0000 http://blog.wholechildeducation.org/?p=1182#comment-7325 What is at stake in the "learning style" concept that requires debunking? No doubt the phrase covers different phenomena which are nevertheless mutually relevant and overlapping. And as with so many ideas, we are combining a metaphor ("style") and empirical reality (categories of students will measurably differ in learning success when "styles" vary). As the idea is insightful, plausible on its face, seems congruent with common sense, and can generate measurable hypothoses -- such as "Students with characteristic "x" learn "y" better ("z" percent better) as listeners rather than readers" -- what could it mean to debunk it? The plausible outcome of the idea is that educators should be flexible with an eye to "style." The scientific outcome is that certain "style" variables (gender? temperament? ethnicity?) can be specified well enough to obtain performance differentials. We can find out just how important gender, or one of the "intelligences," or being inner-city-African-American is with respect to various learning tasks. Maybe research will show that style is of no account whatever. Hard to believe, though; I'd want a lot of "style" experiments to wash out. I have always believed that the rigid standard classroom with teacher in front and students quiet and a crowded room and no recess was miserable for lots of students. But that's a matter of style, isn't it??? What is at stake in the “learning style” concept that requires debunking? No doubt the phrase covers different phenomena which are nevertheless mutually relevant and overlapping. And as with so many ideas, we are combining a metaphor (“style”) and empirical reality (categories of students will measurably differ in learning success when “styles” vary). As the idea is insightful, plausible on its face, seems congruent with common sense, and can generate measurable hypothoses — such as “Students with characteristic “x” learn “y” better (“z” percent better) as listeners rather than readers” — what could it mean to debunk it? The plausible outcome of the idea is that educators should be flexible with an eye to “style.” The scientific outcome is that certain “style” variables (gender? temperament? ethnicity?) can be specified well enough to obtain performance differentials. We can find out just how important gender, or one of the “intelligences,” or being inner-city-African-American is with respect to various learning tasks. Maybe research will show that style is of no account whatever. Hard to believe, though; I’d want a lot of “style” experiments to wash out.

I have always believed that the rigid standard classroom with teacher in front and students quiet and a crowded room and no recess was miserable for lots of students. But that’s a matter of style, isn’t it???

]]>