Learning Styles: Again???

The debate goes on regarding learning styles (teaching to a particular modality). In a recent letter to the Editor, Alyssa Sosinski writes:

“Study after study shows this specific subculture is more likely to comprise kinesthetic learners, who learn best when carrying out physical activities, and is also likely to comprise more creative learners. Since the standardized tests are not written for kinesthetic learners, this may be why those children score so low - not because they don't know the material.

Our students are learning and our teachers are teaching! The standardized tests set forth by NCLB are biased in that they recognize the success of the linguistic and logical-mathematical learner, and therefore are missing a huge population in our schools. These children go through life believing they are failures based on test scores that do not accurately measure their intelligence and are culturally biased against them.”

Eric Schmidt responded to Ms. Sosinski’s letter with:

“The idea that standardized tests don't accurately measure what all children have learned because they emphasize what the letter-writer calls "linguistic and logical-mathematical" skills is a strange criticism. Such skills are at the heart of intelligence. Teaching students to read, write, and cipher - and to think - have been considered the basic tasks of teachers for millennia. That standardized tests should be biased in favor of this is exactly what we should want. After all, what the tests are designed to measure is not kinesthetic ability, but academic ability. Rather than blame the messenger, one could more reasonably draw the following conclusion: Students don't do well on these tests because they simply don't know the material tested. Any concern about the success of poor and minority students should begin with a recognition of these realities.”

I learned of the above letters when Dr. Llyod discussed the topic in his blog Teach Effectively  citing an article by Dr. Willingham (also of UVA). In this article, Dr. Willingham cites cognitive psychology research that determined teaching in the content’s modality is more likely to help learners than teaching to a particular modality. I recommend that readers visit the links above for Dr Llyod’s comments,

Reading Dr. Lloyd’s blog this morning reminded me of a challenge made by Will Thalheimer in the summer of 2006 and discussed again this August. Dr. Thalheimer offered $1000 to anyone who could offer evidence that learning styles actually improve learning outcomes. He still has his $1000.   

If there is no credible evidence that teaching to learning styles makes a difference in learning outcomes, why do so many teachers and educational leaders continue to base teaching methods and school programs on a false belief? I found an answer near the end of an earlier article by Dr. Willingham’s article: Students remember. . .what they think about.

I wish I could believe that this debate will end anytime soon and that teachers will attend to the tasks of teaching with/for meaning and finding the best method for teaching a specific content; rather than spending their time thinking of “fun” ways to teach. I don’t mean that learning should not be fun, but rather that because they are learning and doing well, students will find the content taught interesting and relevant to their lives which gives it meaning --- so they learn.