Comments on: Episode 90: The Learning Styles Myth: An Interview with Daniel Willingham http://www.thepsychfiles.com/2009/03/episode-90-the-learning-styles-myth-an-interview-with-daniel-willingham/ Psychology podcast and resources for students and educators Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:43:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Michael http://www.thepsychfiles.com/2009/03/episode-90-the-learning-styles-myth-an-interview-with-daniel-willingham/comment-page-1/#comment-8717 Michael Sat, 21 Jan 2012 12:28:54 +0000 http://www.thepsychfiles.com/?p=661#comment-8717 It's really hard to overcome this idea because it seems so "right" that people have a learning style. The example I give people is that of physics experiments that's kids often do in high school. You can really only learn by actually DOING these experiments. It doesn't matter if you think you have an "auditory learning style". Can you imagine listening to someone talk about an experiment? You can, but the best way to learn content like this is to DO. The best approach is to fit the teaching technique to the learning goal. I know - it's a hard sell.... It’s really hard to overcome this idea because it seems so “right” that people have a learning style. The example I give people is that of physics experiments that’s kids often do in high school. You can really only learn by actually DOING these experiments. It doesn’t matter if you think you have an “auditory learning style”. Can you imagine listening to someone talk about an experiment? You can, but the best way to learn content like this is to DO.

The best approach is to fit the teaching technique to the learning goal.

I know – it’s a hard sell….

]]> By: Left-brain vs. Right-brain Learning Styles | Skeptikai http://www.thepsychfiles.com/2009/03/episode-90-the-learning-styles-myth-an-interview-with-daniel-willingham/comment-page-1/#comment-8652 Left-brain vs. Right-brain Learning Styles | Skeptikai Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:00:23 +0000 http://www.thepsychfiles.com/?p=661#comment-8652 [...] confusing, he has a brief clarification. If you want an elaboration, podcasting psychologist Michael Britt has a 40-minute interview with Willingham on his [...] [...] confusing, he has a brief clarification. If you want an elaboration, podcasting psychologist Michael Britt has a 40-minute interview with Willingham on his [...]

]]> By: Gretchen http://www.thepsychfiles.com/2009/03/episode-90-the-learning-styles-myth-an-interview-with-daniel-willingham/comment-page-1/#comment-8401 Gretchen Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:49:49 +0000 http://www.thepsychfiles.com/?p=661#comment-8401 Thank you for the podcast. The problems I see that arise from the misunderstanding of "learning style" is how it is used by the authors of elementary and middle school curriculums. In particular,in the Connected Math curriculum, a math curriculum my school district uses, which uses a wholistic approach, instead of a linear approach and is very confusing for the kids who may be strong linear thinkers, but feel stupid and don't like math because of the way it is taught by the wholistically strong thinking teachers using a wholistic curriculum (they helped develop it). Even the members of the Board, teachers and principals at our school district keep referring to my child as one who has the learning problem because, they say, "he has a different learning style",(when he actually is a very linear thinking individual). They just don't get it. Can you offer any help? Thank you for the podcast. The problems I see that arise from the misunderstanding of “learning style” is how it is used by the authors of elementary and middle school curriculums. In particular,in the Connected Math curriculum, a math curriculum my school district uses, which uses a wholistic approach, instead of a linear approach and is very confusing for the kids who may be strong linear thinkers, but feel stupid and don’t like math because of the way it is taught by the wholistically strong thinking teachers using a wholistic curriculum (they helped develop it). Even the members of the Board, teachers and principals at our school district keep referring to my child as one who has the learning problem because, they say, “he has a different learning style”,(when he actually is a very linear thinking individual). They just don’t get it. Can you offer any help?

]]> By: Josh http://www.thepsychfiles.com/2009/03/episode-90-the-learning-styles-myth-an-interview-with-daniel-willingham/comment-page-1/#comment-7228 Josh Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:22:02 +0000 http://www.thepsychfiles.com/?p=661#comment-7228 The reason this meme is so prevalent in schools is not because it is correct, nor because it is touted by teacher ed. texts, but because of the management models of evaluating teaching ability. When a principal is charged with evaluating the prowess of the teachers in her school, and has to report those findings upward to her "managers", the same silliness happens as when we are evaluating our students: we want to fall back on measurables. It's a lot easier to carry a clipboard into a teacher evaluation and tick off "yes" or "no" to a question like, "Does the teacher address the students' learning styles individually?" than to actually make complex judgements about a very fluid and complicated problem like evaluating "good teaching". So it's partly a question of efficiency. The other half of the equation comes from good intentions, I think: most teachers or educators feel a calling and a social responsibility to their profession. We're often caring to a fault, and this is an example of the 'fault': our predisposition to believing that our job involves finding the "hidden learner" in every student blinds us to the lack of evidence for this particular incarnation of that impulse. A kind of Confirmation Bias, if you will. Sadly, the two halves of the equation often come together in unsavory ways: when the principal asks "Is the teacher hitting enough of the learning styles in his lessons?" the implied subtext is often, "Is the teacher caring enough toward his students?" This puts a lot of pressure for the meme to become accepted, or at least unquestioned, in teacher circles, at least when administration is present. I think this is the method of preservation of a lot of silly educational buzzwords, actually: they're tied to teacher performance reviews. A lot of it is just lip service, as you suggested, but it still has an effect. The reason this meme is so prevalent in schools is not because it is correct, nor because it is touted by teacher ed. texts, but because of the management models of evaluating teaching ability. When a principal is charged with evaluating the prowess of the teachers in her school, and has to report those findings upward to her “managers”, the same silliness happens as when we are evaluating our students: we want to fall back on measurables. It’s a lot easier to carry a clipboard into a teacher evaluation and tick off “yes” or “no” to a question like, “Does the teacher address the students’ learning styles individually?” than to actually make complex judgements about a very fluid and complicated problem like evaluating “good teaching”. So it’s partly a question of efficiency. The other half of the equation comes from good intentions, I think: most teachers or educators feel a calling and a social responsibility to their profession. We’re often caring to a fault, and this is an example of the ‘fault’: our predisposition to believing that our job involves finding the “hidden learner” in every student blinds us to the lack of evidence for this particular incarnation of that impulse. A kind of Confirmation Bias, if you will. Sadly, the two halves of the equation often come together in unsavory ways: when the principal asks “Is the teacher hitting enough of the learning styles in his lessons?” the implied subtext is often, “Is the teacher caring enough toward his students?” This puts a lot of pressure for the meme to become accepted, or at least unquestioned, in teacher circles, at least when administration is present. I think this is the method of preservation of a lot of silly educational buzzwords, actually: they’re tied to teacher performance reviews. A lot of it is just lip service, as you suggested, but it still has an effect.

]]> By: The Psych Files Podcast « meme2012 http://www.thepsychfiles.com/2009/03/episode-90-the-learning-styles-myth-an-interview-with-daniel-willingham/comment-page-1/#comment-4302 The Psych Files Podcast « meme2012 Sat, 16 Jul 2011 16:58:56 +0000 http://www.thepsychfiles.com/?p=661#comment-4302 [...] Episode 90: The Learning Styles Myth: An Interview with Daniel Willingham [...] [...] Episode 90: The Learning Styles Myth: An Interview with Daniel Willingham [...]

]]> By: Simon http://www.thepsychfiles.com/2009/03/episode-90-the-learning-styles-myth-an-interview-with-daniel-willingham/comment-page-1/#comment-3408 Simon Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:45:32 +0000 http://www.thepsychfiles.com/?p=661#comment-3408 Hello Michael, I think it is a bit difficult to completely dismiss the concept of "learning styles". The study that was mentioned in the comments is interesting, but as far as I can see, the idea that different ways to process information have their anatomical correlates in the brain is well established. Regarding the visualizer/verbalizer-discussion, there is extremely interesting work my Maria Kozhevnikov and others at the moment. Her Harvard homepage with all publications in pdf-format: http://www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mkozhevnlab/?page_id=11 In the last years she has, in my opinion, found convincing evidence that there are indeed three cognitive styles: One verbal and two visual (object imagery and spatial imagery). Object imagery is for static images, vividness, color and shape. Spatial imagery is for schematic viewings, maipulation and transformation of objects and movement. So visual ability is no "continuum", not a single scale, but has two factors. Those two visual abilities correlate (fMRI) very good with the two visual streams (ventral and dorsal), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Streams_hypothesis. When testing a group of visual artists, a group of scientists, control groups and groups of gifted children, with several typical tasks (Mental Rotation Test; Paper Folding Test; VVIQ; MPI), the result of several studies combined was: - the visual artists performed much better at object imagery tasks - the scientists performed much better at spatial imagery tasks - the differences in "talent" for object and spatial imagery as already present at school children - children who prefer spatial solving strategies perform significantly better at math tests - there seems to be a trade-off between object and spatial imagery, probably due to limited ressources in central executive working memory (only 10 % of the tested performed in the top third in object and spatial imagery, and only about 5 % performed in the top third for verbal, object and spatial ability) - people who self-evaluate themselves higher on the object imagery questionnaire have indeed higher object imagery ability: They show more efficient object imagery processing in their ventral pathway under fMRI when presented with an object imagery task In my opinion, this is a strong evidence for "learning styles" in a limited sense: The majority of children and adults seem to prefer either object imagery or spatial imagery. This difference in strategy leads to differences in performance, for instance in math and visual arts. So it should, at least theoretically, be possible to identify certain learning styles (always being aware that there is no either/or, since some people are good at both visual styles and at verbal; there are shades of grey and no exclusion). For instance, it was shown that some object imagery-visualizers had problems understanding physics graphs because they were taking them literally. It was also shown that those people could better understand the connection between graph and the events described by the graph if they could simultaneously see the real wotrld events and their effects on the graph, because that way they could make a conncetion between both. If a teacher with pupils who have severe math problems and don't seem to "understand" some of the more schematic, spatial tasks, he/she could test the kids with regard to their visual style and might perhaps give them a more fitting explanation of the concrete math task, matched with their cognitive style. The most recent study (where the trade-off between object imagery and spatial imagery was discovered) is from 2010, so if future studies make even more progress in that direction, it might well be possible to help children according to their preferred "learning style". What makes this whole series of studies so convincing for me is the ambitious attempt to establish a clear theoretical framework (verbal-object imagery-spatial imagery) in the area of learning styles. Furthermore, it is the success of each study that tested that framework. The discovery of the trade-off (2010) is, in my view, a certain breakthrough, because it clarifies the connection between the two visual streams. Best wishes Simon Hello Michael,

I think it is a bit difficult to completely dismiss the concept of “learning styles”.

The study that was mentioned in the comments is interesting, but as far as I can see, the idea that different ways to process information have their anatomical correlates in the brain is well established.

Regarding the visualizer/verbalizer-discussion, there is extremely interesting work my Maria Kozhevnikov and others at the moment. Her Harvard homepage with all publications in pdf-format:

http://www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mkozhevnlab/?page_id=11

In the last years she has, in my opinion, found convincing evidence that there are indeed three cognitive styles:

One verbal and two visual (object imagery and spatial imagery). Object imagery is for static images, vividness, color and shape. Spatial imagery is for schematic viewings, maipulation and transformation of objects and movement. So visual ability is no “continuum”, not a single scale, but has two factors.

Those two visual abilities correlate (fMRI) very good with the two visual streams (ventral and dorsal), see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Streams_hypothesis.

When testing a group of visual artists, a group of scientists, control groups and groups of gifted children, with several typical tasks (Mental Rotation Test; Paper Folding Test; VVIQ; MPI), the result of several studies combined was:

- the visual artists performed much better at object imagery tasks
- the scientists performed much better at spatial imagery tasks
- the differences in “talent” for object and spatial imagery as already present at school children
- children who prefer spatial solving strategies perform significantly better at math tests
- there seems to be a trade-off between object and spatial imagery, probably due to limited ressources in central executive working memory (only 10 % of the tested performed in the top third in object and spatial imagery, and only about 5 % performed in the top third for verbal, object and spatial ability)
- people who self-evaluate themselves higher on the object imagery questionnaire have indeed higher object imagery ability: They show more efficient object imagery processing in their ventral pathway under fMRI when presented with an object imagery task

In my opinion, this is a strong evidence for “learning styles” in a limited sense:

The majority of children and adults seem to prefer either object imagery or spatial imagery. This difference in strategy leads to differences in performance, for instance in math and visual arts. So it should, at least theoretically, be possible to identify certain learning styles (always being aware that there is no either/or, since some people are good at both visual styles and at verbal; there are shades of grey and no exclusion).

For instance, it was shown that some object imagery-visualizers had problems understanding physics graphs because they were taking them literally. It was also shown that those people could better understand the connection between graph and the events described by the graph if they could simultaneously see the real wotrld events and their effects on the graph, because that way they could make a conncetion between both. If a teacher with pupils who have severe math problems and don’t seem to “understand” some of the more schematic, spatial tasks, he/she could test the kids with regard to their visual style and might perhaps give them a more fitting explanation of the concrete math task, matched with their cognitive style.

The most recent study (where the trade-off between object imagery and spatial imagery was discovered) is from 2010, so if future studies make even more progress in that direction, it might well be possible to help children according to their preferred “learning style”.

What makes this whole series of studies so convincing for me is the ambitious attempt to establish a clear theoretical framework (verbal-object imagery-spatial imagery) in the area of learning styles. Furthermore, it is the success of each study that tested that framework. The discovery of the trade-off (2010) is, in my view, a certain breakthrough, because it clarifies the connection between the two visual streams.

Best wishes

Simon

]]> By: Roderic Rinehart http://www.thepsychfiles.com/2009/03/episode-90-the-learning-styles-myth-an-interview-with-daniel-willingham/comment-page-1/#comment-2405 Roderic Rinehart Mon, 19 Apr 2010 03:27:44 +0000 http://www.thepsychfiles.com/?p=661#comment-2405 I'm late to the conversation and wanted, mainly, to thank Dan and Michael for discussing an issue in education that so many people and departments of education have so wrong. I find it more than a bit curious and annoying that my school of education at Indiana University requires us to prove our ability to address each learning style in every lesson plan and our portfolio. I also find it disturbing that even grad classes there do not offer the kind of curriculum an institution of higher learning should - namely - one that presents all the information and has the students come to their own reasoned conclusions. My concerns and critiques are brushed off, as if the viewpoints I bring up are part of such a minority or fringe that they do not warrant class time. I’m late to the conversation and wanted, mainly, to thank Dan and Michael for discussing an issue in education that so many people and departments of education have so wrong. I find it more than a bit curious and annoying that my school of education at Indiana University requires us to prove our ability to address each learning style in every lesson plan and our portfolio.

I also find it disturbing that even grad classes there do not offer the kind of curriculum an institution of higher learning should – namely – one that presents all the information and has the students come to their own reasoned conclusions. My concerns and critiques are brushed off, as if the viewpoints I bring up are part of such a minority or fringe that they do not warrant class time.

]]> By: PSYCHOLOGY 4280 » Learning styles http://www.thepsychfiles.com/2009/03/episode-90-the-learning-styles-myth-an-interview-with-daniel-willingham/comment-page-1/#comment-2377 PSYCHOLOGY 4280 » Learning styles Sat, 10 Apr 2010 21:41:42 +0000 http://www.thepsychfiles.com/?p=661#comment-2377 [...] The Psych Files interview with Daniel Willingham [...] [...] The Psych Files interview with Daniel Willingham [...]

]]> By: “4 vor Feierabend”: Report auf Deutsch, Lernstile, Lernhelfer Twitter, Reporter weg - Twitter, Learning, Lerner, Thema, Horizon, Report, Sixtus, Consortium - Lernen 2.0 - LernenZweiNull.de http://www.thepsychfiles.com/2009/03/episode-90-the-learning-styles-myth-an-interview-with-daniel-willingham/comment-page-1/#comment-2316 “4 vor Feierabend”: Report auf Deutsch, Lernstile, Lernhelfer Twitter, Reporter weg - Twitter, Learning, Lerner, Thema, Horizon, Report, Sixtus, Consortium - Lernen 2.0 - LernenZweiNull.de Fri, 26 Mar 2010 19:42:25 +0000 http://www.thepsychfiles.com/?p=661#comment-2316 [...] of Virginia als Gegner der Lerntypen-Idee an. Willingham äußert sich zusätzlich auch in einem Podcast zum Thema und hat offenbar auch seinen Interviewer, Michael Britt, davon abgebracht, an Lerntypen [...] [...] of Virginia als Gegner der Lerntypen-Idee an. Willingham äußert sich zusätzlich auch in einem Podcast zum Thema und hat offenbar auch seinen Interviewer, Michael Britt, davon abgebracht, an Lerntypen [...]

]]> By: J-B Q http://www.thepsychfiles.com/2009/03/episode-90-the-learning-styles-myth-an-interview-with-daniel-willingham/comment-page-1/#comment-2036 J-B Q Thu, 07 Jan 2010 01:42:29 +0000 http://www.thepsychfiles.com/?p=661#comment-2036 “Learning style is not significant in terms of results”. Considering the confirmation bias, we could consider that we prime our “believed learning style”. Therefore we are self-inducing an interest in the content by priming the form, the way we learn. Did anyone conduct a research on the motivational aspect of the learning style? From a cognitive perspective we might not have any benefits in considering the learning styles. On the other hand, as social animals, we may benefit from learning styles in an indirect way, a self inducted way. For example, H may believe that he is a visual learner then by studying in this particular fashion H may feel more confident and more motivated. H might cope with the fact that he is not good in math by thinking that the content does not fit the form (learning style) that enhance the best her understanding and memory process. By considering the Learning style hypotheses, we probably cognitively auto-limit our ability to grasp and understand information. How to fight children’s boredom and keep their cognitive potential at the maximum? Keep their “Thirst of knowledge” and have them being the most efficient in terms of mental ability (cognitive capacity) are the challenges of the educator. “Learning style is not significant in terms of results”.
Considering the confirmation bias, we could consider that we prime our “believed learning style”. Therefore we are self-inducing an interest in the content by priming the form, the way we learn.

Did anyone conduct a research on the motivational aspect of the learning style?

From a cognitive perspective we might not have any benefits in considering the learning styles.

On the other hand, as social animals, we may benefit from learning styles in an indirect way, a self inducted way. For example, H may believe that he is a visual learner then by studying in this particular fashion H may feel more confident and more motivated. H might cope with the fact that he is not good in math by thinking that the content does not fit the form (learning style) that enhance the best her understanding and memory process.

By considering the Learning style hypotheses, we probably cognitively auto-limit our ability to grasp and understand information.

How to fight children’s boredom and keep their cognitive potential at the maximum?
Keep their “Thirst of knowledge” and have them being the most efficient in terms of mental ability (cognitive capacity) are the challenges of the educator.

]]>