[pbhjpbhj]

Skimming, that paper says there's no support for it, rather than there being evidence to falsify the idea that different people learn better in different ways.

I seem to learn best when I write stuff down; I've assumed this wasn't true for everyone.

Presumably a basic test like presenting new subjects to a group in 3 different ways (lecture, reading material, activity -- say) and test the group, see if subject matter uptake is identical in each case. Could someone link that, it seems to be like the first thing you'd test?

94% of UK teachers think their pupils learn better through individualised learning methods (according to your first link), but you contend their belief is false ... even though there's no formalised support (again according to the link) why do you think teachers feel there is. Surely they see a portion of their pupils are giving better responses if they present knowledge in one way vs another? Any thoughts on how nearly all teachers are mislead in this way?

It also says, roughly, a third say they'll continue to present according to personalised methodologies even if there's no evidence (yet!) to support that pedagogy. That seems natural; if something appears to work when you do it, even if someone else has no evidence that it works you'll keep doing it.

So which method of information is best for all people, as the contention is this isn't variable: all people learn best by ...? (hearing, seeing, taking part, watching, ...)?

[Kalium]

> Skimming, that paper says there's no support for it, rather than there being evidence to falsify the idea that different people learn better in different ways.

Yes. That's the phrasing you get when researchers mean "As far as we can tell it's bullshit". Generally coupled with data that shows them looking for effects and finding zilch - which is the negative evidence you're looking for.

Do you think there's something lacking here?

[JoeAltmaier]

The part that's always deliberately ignored in these studies is, that people may have a preference for different presentations and processes. So while, if you force people (in an experimental environment) to use one techinique, and they end up learning about as well, it ignores the idea that they would have resisted learning that thing at all if it was only presented that way?

[alxlaz]

They don't, and it doesn't.

First, you'd think that, if adjusting learning styles actually made people more interested, or if it made the whole experience feel more inclusive, and make people more drawn to it, the outcomes would be better, because that's how motivation works. The fact that there is no improvement in outcome suggests that that's just not happening.

Second, though, one might convincingly object that, well, maybe it's like that if you're only measuring short-term results, but maybe in the long run it improves results, because it makes school less unfriendly, for example. But there are several studies (e.g. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0022027021014189... ) which show that it actually leads to worse results because adjusting teaching style for everything is very unproductive from a pedagogical standpoint.

The studies I'm aware of devote little time on speculating whythat's the case, but in my experience, while teaching something in a manner that does't match a person's preference can be daunting or uninteresting, teaching something in a manner that matches a person's preference but not the topic itself (e.g. it's pretty hard to teach electric motor theory without a lot of pictures) makes it even more uninteresting and dreadful.

Edit: to be clear, what these studies contradict isn't that people have preferences regarding how they learn. There's ample evidence to suggest that people like some better than others (and, obviously, if they learn all by themselves, they'll skip the ones that they don't like, or practice the ones that they like more than the ones that they don't like). What these studies convincingly contradict is the idea that adjusting teaching styles to match these preferences produces better outcomes.

[Kalium]

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that the idea of Learning Styles, which are about how effectively an individual student learns a subject depending on presentation style, ignores personal preferences of students that don't have an impact on instructional efficacy? Or that it ignores the preferences of teachers?

[JoeAltmaier]

It ignores the fact that one student will ignore the reading if not forced to do it, while another prefers the reading and completes it. Etc. So we see, in practice, different outcomes for different students depending on how the material is presented.

[Kalium]

Thank you for clarifying!

As I understand them, these studies of Learning Styles are focused entirely on pedagogical methods and their efficacy at teaching material to students. The implication, as near as I can tell, is that a student's personal preferences for how they might do things outside an instruction environment is not relevant to efficacy inside an instructional environment. You seem to be contending that a person's preferences for how to learn can and should be expected to impact the efficiency of their learning process - which sounds a lot like the Learning Styles idea!

After all, if a student might have resisted an approach in a counterfactual scenario but did learn successfully and as efficiently as a student who would not have resisted that same approach, then the same outcome is achieved in both theory and practice.

Have I missed something? Perhaps I have failed to understand your point?

[JoeAltmaier]

No I contend nothing nothing about efficiency of each process- its the choice to participate at all that can make the difference.

And I read that first link, which seems to survey teachers and their opinions, with vague questions and no hard data. Not very damning at all? Which paper was nailing which coffins? I missed it.

[alxlaz]

> Skimming, that paper says there's no support for it, rather than there being evidence to falsify the idea that different people learn better in different ways.

There is also no evidence to falsify the idea that there is a magical teapot orbiting Mars, and that if you rub it with your left hand in a certain rhythm, the Goddess of Tea herself will emerge and grant you three wishes, as long as they involve tea. But we're not rushing to put a manned spacecraft on the orbit of Mars the way we've rushed to adopt the learning styles theory -- even though enough money has been sunk into it that it might have at least paid for a decent launch pad :-).

Indeed, people prefer to receive information in one manner or another, there's nothing surprising here (like you, it seems to me that I learn best when I write stuff down), and there is plenty of evidence for it.

However, there is no evidence to suggest that adjusting teaching methods based on these preferences leads to better student outcome.

There have been attempts to "rescue" this stuff by claiming that well, it doesn't necessarily make students learn better, but at least it makes school seem more palatable, friendlier and so on, so it's more interesting and so it indirectly does produce better results. But it turns out that, especially when groups and standard curriculae are involves, several studies have shown that it actually leads to worse results (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0022027021014189... is the most cited, but there are others as well), because there are pedagogical difficulties in adjusting content and teaching styles.

It may look surprising at first, but if you've ever had to teach, it's almost disappointingly obvious. Adjusting topics that inherently lend themselves to a teaching style to a different teaching style produces vastly inferior results -- and, anecdotally, it turns out to be even less interesting than it would have been in the first place.

> Any thoughts on how nearly all teachers are mislead in this way?

The same way that, 150 years ago, nearly all teachers were misled to think that we were created just like we are today 7,000 years ago. At one point, there was a (more or less) scientific consensus that This Is How Things Are, and if you wanted to pass the exams that you need to pass in order to be allowed to teach, then this is what you had to say. The consensus was abandoned, of course, but the misconception stuck for a long time.

This is especially problematic in volatile and fashion-inducing fields (like psychology): practicing psychologists keep in touch with these things. They were taught this theory in the 1980s, but they stayed in the field and understand that we now know it's bollocks. Teachers don't. If you teach anything except for psychology, you probably took a few classes on psychology and pedagogy back in university and that was it (that's certainly how it went in my case). Unless you're keenly interested in this matter (or, like me, you have a psychologist in your family), you don't follow these developments.

[pbhjpbhj]

I've done a bit of teaching. My experience has been that some learners (younger primary schoolers and middle aged adults in separate situations) will understand an oral or written presentation, others won't get that at all but still readily comprehend an image, some require actual experience to acquire the presented knowledge.

This could be just literacy and spatial reasoning ... but even so in practice that would support tailored pedagogies.

From the other side, as a student, people use a "memory palace" -- but that is entirely ineffective for me; how does that fit in to the idea that we all learn equally well with the same techniques?

It just seems counter-logical and contrary to my experience (teaching and being taught).

Your examples of self deception/false beliefs are both useless. Teachers have direct and intimate experience of hundreds of student reaction to teaching methods, often across decades. Teachers have no direct experience of orbiting teapots nor Creation.

Did I miss the links to the comparative studies showing students learn equally well across different modes?