{"id":854,"date":"2018-04-16T20:04:24","date_gmt":"2018-04-17T03:04:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/loopcntr.net\/wordpress\/?p=854"},"modified":"2019-02-02T11:54:46","modified_gmt":"2019-02-02T19:54:46","slug":"when-educator-logic-fails-learning-styles-are-called-myths","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/loopcntr.net\/musings\/when-educator-logic-fails-learning-styles-are-called-myths\/","title":{"rendered":"When educator logic fails learning styles are called “myths”"},"content":{"rendered":"

This post is a stub of a response to an article debunking learning styles<\/a> that I found referenced on LinkedIn<\/a>. The article claims that evidence supports the conclusion that learning styles are a myth and should not be used as guides for how to teach. I read the article and then the comments. I’ll add more details and references to this blog post in the next few days.<\/p>\n

For now, it seems to me that all the commenters are falling victim to two logical errors. First, they are generalizing from a specific model of learning styles to the idea that learning styles probably don’t exist at all. Second, they are dismissing learning styles instead of asking whether there is another, more dominant factor, determining the results. Let’s look a little more closely.<\/p>\n

There have been many different “learning styles” proposed. One of them is the auditory-visual-kenisthetic break down mentioned in the article. Another theory looks at field dependence\/field independence. A third, J. P. Guilford’s Structure of Intellect proposes 128 different cognitive factors that interact to produce a complex learning style profile. I’m sure there are more.<\/p>\n

What bothers me is not whether or not the learning style model presented is a useful tool for analyzing learners. Rather, I worry about researchers, teachers and journalists who are incapable of drawing valid conclusions from the evidence available to them.<\/p>\n

Share this:<\/h3>