[tdb7893]

There is pervasive myth that how students learn best can practically be separated into discreet styles such as the "listening" style or the "visual" style, and that is what the article is saying is not a useful idea. I don't think the article is arguing at all that "one size fits all" for education.

[pbhjpbhj]

If it's not "one-size fits all" doesn't that mean different modes are preferable for different students, wouldn't it be reasonable to call these modes "styles"?

The article sounds like a straw man, I can readily believe that someone identified as "listening style" only getting education aurally would be ineffective; but that doesn't mean that reinforcing information update aurally, or using a communication style of learning won't help, surely.

Personally I found I need to write to acquire information, an important part of learning; also doodling helps me digest complex information. I'm quite visual in some ways, I can't do directions but a glance at a map does work for me - similarly I usually need a mental picture to hang further learning on. Fractal geometry came easily to me but I've never managed to grok hypercubes as I can't really conjure a mental model, etc..

I'd absolutely agree that pigeonholing people as "style X" and educating them separately is probably not good, personally I've never come across that in teaching.

[watwut]

" If it's not "one-size fits all" doesn't that mean different modes are preferable for different students, wouldn't it be reasonable to call these modes "styles"?"

Not really, because a.) it is often situational b.) you can get better at learning with other "style" if you are exposed to it more c.) it is more of a scale then discreet grouping.

The individualization is not so much about always talking vs always reading. It is more about identifying individual stumbling spot, figuring out what the child missed in prerequisities, whether the child does not develop faster/slower then expectation, adjusting breaks to individual attention span and so on.