Maybe the real "learning styles" are defined by previously acquired knowledge that is rather fluid and of interest to the learner. Intrinsic interest is a huge advantage, and previously correlated learning probably works more or less as a scaffolding for further learning. People's interests and previous knowledge will not fit homogeneously into those series of dichotomies, so it could produce an appearance of a more generalized learning style accordingly. Those would be more analog to music or cuisine preferences, rather than being right or left-handed. A more biologically significant type of learning style (or illusion thereof) could be, on younger children and early teens, I guess, perhaps things like degrees of dyslexia that is not diagnosed as such, and may also be correlated with a subjective feeling of having learning styles that don't rely much on reading.
So if I give you two radius's of a wheel, with a belt around them both, then asked you to tell me the rotation speed and direction of the other you could tell me easier if I showed you?
I view learning styles with a critical eye as well; however, Dr. Bjork misrepresents learning styles in this video when he says that if you find your preferred learning style learning will just happen without any effort on your part. I don't know of any learning style researcher who has made that claim. Those who support learning styles defend their position by saying that preferred learning styles help the learner but not that learning just automatically happens. If we're going to be critical of a theory then let's at least represent the theory correctly.
I generally agree with Dr. Bjork's hypotheses. That no one size fits all, is a given; that no one catalyst will determine a child's or adult's learning ability or success is also obvious based on both research and my own personal experiences. Nevertheless, a child's personal learning style may serve as a catalyst to learning or as a barrier. What is obvious from the research available and the debate in progress is that no one issue is the sole determinant of a child's learning effectiveness. I therefore subscribe to the principle to 'do no harm'. So anything a teacher, or learning facilitator (the title i prefer) can learn about their subject will help them maximize the 'learner's learning potential.
Wouldn't using something that is ineffective actually involve doing harm? If it takes time and resources away from using more potentially useful treatments/interventions.
I don't know why matter of intellect didn't get mentioned in this short video. That s completely obvious that your IQ determines your learning capacity. So called G factor (Charles Spearman) plays HUGE role at understanding and remembering topics. G factor is distributed DIFFERENTLY in society. At least as far as i know, correct me if i m wrong.
Maybe the real "learning styles" are defined by previously acquired knowledge that is rather fluid and of interest to the learner. Intrinsic interest is a huge advantage, and previously correlated learning probably works more or less as a scaffolding for further learning. People's interests and previous knowledge will not fit homogeneously into those series of dichotomies, so it could produce an appearance of a more generalized learning style accordingly. Those would be more analog to music or cuisine preferences, rather than being right or left-handed.
A more biologically significant type of learning style (or illusion thereof) could be, on younger children and early teens, I guess, perhaps things like degrees of dyslexia that is not diagnosed as such, and may also be correlated with a subjective feeling of having learning styles that don't rely much on reading.
Loving this. Some of us are still living a lie of the learning styles
So if I give you two radius's of a wheel, with a belt around them both, then asked you to tell me the rotation speed and direction of the other you could tell me easier if I showed you?
I view learning styles with a critical eye as well; however, Dr. Bjork misrepresents learning styles in this video when he says that if you find your preferred learning style learning will just happen without any effort on your part. I don't know of any learning style researcher who has made that claim. Those who support learning styles defend their position by saying that preferred learning styles help the learner but not that learning just automatically happens. If we're going to be critical of a theory then let's at least represent the theory correctly.
I generally agree with Dr. Bjork's hypotheses. That no one size fits all, is a given; that no one catalyst will determine a child's or adult's learning ability or success is also obvious based on both research and my own personal experiences. Nevertheless, a child's personal learning style may serve as a catalyst to learning or as a barrier. What is obvious from the research available and the debate in progress is that no one issue is the sole determinant of a child's learning effectiveness. I therefore subscribe to the principle to 'do no harm'. So anything a teacher, or learning facilitator (the title i prefer) can learn about their subject will help them maximize the 'learner's learning potential.
Wouldn't using something that is ineffective actually involve doing harm? If it takes time and resources away from using more potentially useful treatments/interventions.
I don't know why matter of intellect didn't get mentioned in this short video. That s completely obvious that your IQ determines your learning capacity. So called G factor (Charles Spearman) plays HUGE role at understanding and remembering topics. G factor is distributed DIFFERENTLY in society. At least as far as i know, correct me if i m wrong.
IQ is a dismal measure of intelligence: supermemo.guru/wiki/IQ_is_a_dismal_measure_of_intelligence
It's a waste of time and money.
There's only the ability to adjust to circumstances, and the situations as they present
Test me I bet you can find my style.