Teachers must ditch 'neuromyth' of learning styles, say scientists | Hacker News Reader

Teachers must ditch 'neuromyth' of learning styles, say scientists

theguardian.com

173 pointsrrherr136 comments

It would be more helpful to ditch the 'myth' that age-segregated classrooms are an improvement over the one-room school house.

It used to be that education was something people did for themselves. Parents or a teacher would help children learn what they wanted to learn, when they were ready to learn it. Modern schooling forces children to learn on the teacher's schedule.

John Taylor Gatto wrote extensively of the corrupt nature of institutionalized schooling 15-20 years ago. I guess it's not polite to point out that the system is rigged against children, so Mr. Gatto's insights into more effective teaching have been successfully ignored in recent years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Taylor_Gatto#Main_thesis

"Against School: How Public Education Cripples our Kids, and Why" - http://www.wesjones.com/gatto1.htm

Archive.org should have the complete text of "The Underground History of American Education", which was formerly posted in its entirety at http://www.JohnTaylorGatto.com

Also search for "I quit, I think", and ... "The Seven Lesson Schoolteacher"... several copies of these essays are scattered around the internet.

For those interested in learning how a return to a one-room school house kind of mentality goes, the Sudbury Model Schools are such an example. The original such school's website has a number of resources: http://www.sudval.org/

John Taylor Gatto is really worth reading.

I also highly recommend "How Children Fail" by John Holt. It's one of those books that I keep thinking about, even years after I first read it.

Not sure about older children, but I was with a program that ran early childhood for the 6 weeks to 3+ year children (pre-Head Start). Other than the infants, all the children were in the same area. The older kids basically taught the younger children potty training and other skills. The teachers were still able to do individual learning (often helped by the younger children having watched the older children) and the children were happy. I think daycare / ECE that segregates children by years are doing a huge disservice to the children.

Ivan Illich said a lot of this sort of thing in 1971: "Universal education through schooling is not possible. ...", Deschooling Society.

Elon Musk started a mixed-aged school, without grades (in both senses of the word), for his and some SpaceX employees kids. A pretty well-written, detailed article can be found here ( http://education.penelopetrunk.com/2015/06/01/finally-silico... ).

First sentence:

> Her name is Elizabeth and she is a parent to three girls that are being unschooled.

Merriam webster says

> to make (one) disregard schooling or training

I don't think the well-written article and the dictionary are on the same page.

This is the kind of "unschooling" it's talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unschooling

If you are going to criticize/snark, at least be factually correct. The part you quoted is in italics and is from the editor of the website, not the author of the article.

"It used to be that education was something people did for themselves. Parents or a teacher would help children learn what they wanted to learn, when they were ready to learn it. Modern schooling forces children to learn on the teacher's schedule."

Yeah, but back in that day, you only got education if your parents had the time and knowledge to do it, or the wealth to hire private tutors.

Not once the children learn to read. After that, all it took was a library or, now, the internet.

That is, that's all it takes if the child values learning. If not, well, plenty of children manage not to learn in schools, too.

I don't know how wise it is for a child (without having learned the value/practice of critical thinking yet) to gain foundational knowledge on the Internet of all places.

> if the child values learning

Big if there. Kids aren't really the ones who understand the value of learning. Give a kid with the ability to read the Internet and say "have at it" will probably not result in an educated child.

Why? What is wrong with taking all your politics and history lessons from 4chan?

> That is, that's all it takes if the child values learning. If not, well, plenty of children manage not to learn in schools, too.

It's also entirely possible to take a child that values learning and drive that out of them through discouragement and disincentive, something schools are often quite good at.

On the flip side, it's entirely possible to encourage a child to value learning. But that's something that tends to happen early, far before school, and even if present, may or may not survive contact with school.

> On the flip side, it's entirely possible to encourage a child to value learning. But that's something that tends to happen early, far before school...

A good teacher can do it, at least for some children. Teachers that good are rare, though.

Provided the children could acquire good litteracy, provided there was an easily available library and children had access to it, provided the children had free time available, etc.

All of these were and still are statistically predicted by children's origins.

Age mixed classes in lower grades are more effective, but also more expensive because you need less children on one teacher.

As for teaching children only what they want to learn, no. I would not raise my kids that way.

The Gatto essays are remarkably concise and convincing. I'm very sympathetic to that critic.

relatedly, Ivan Illich "Deschool Society" [0] is another author that wrote in depth on this subject with similar incisive critiques.

also, Darren Allen writes on the institutional nature of modern society [1] and the way we are conditioned to become subservient to its structures [2].

all of this begins in elementary school and it's sorting of children into groups. The conditioning of children into being "manageable" components in an institutional indoctrination system is at the heart of how the system perpetuates itself.

0 - http://www.preservenet.com/theory/Illich/Deschooling/intro.h...

1 - http://expressiveegg.org/2017/05/05/egotism-institution-mono...

2 - http://expressiveegg.org/2016/10/09/5-system-filters/

> It used to be that education was something people did for themselves

Not really; for most people for most of time education, such as it was, has been narrowly directed from outside at a particular pre-ordained social role.

The luxury of self-directed education has been rare, and mostly available in fairly narrow social strata where it has been available at all (and often some high-middle stratum more than actual highest elites, because the latter often had stricter expectations with less flexibility.)

One of the arguments seem rather weak:

> Throughout most of American history, kids generally didn't go to high school, yet the unschooled rose to be admirals, like Farragut; inventors, like Edison; captains of industry, like Carnegie and Rockefeller;

Oh, "Einstein was bad at math! and I'm bad at math ... so I can be a genius too!". Farragut, Edison and Rockefeller would have probably excelled anywhere. Schooling, no schooling, home-schooling or Montessori schooling. What about the millions of people who were not schooled, and remained philistines their whole life?

If you are trying to solve your own smart child's education, his arguments make perfect sense. If you are trying to optimise the overall level of education of a country with a limited budget, things are more nuanced. There is, without question, lots of room for improvement in education. But suggesting that anybody can be a star if you take away that pesky schooling is disingenuous.

Counterpoint: what about all of the people who went to school and are still philistines? People are proud of their lack of knowledge, and part of that is because it's 'okay' to hate school.

It's not entirely uncommon that people feel they learn way better outside of school. I'd say that's a pretty huge indication of failure, given the fact that the entire purpose of school is learning.

I'd argue the purpose of school as we know it (Prussian model) is to indoctrinate the students to bow to authority, and diminish trust in peers.

In which case you'd expect (student-lead) learning outside of school would be superior, as you mentioned.

I know a lot of teachers, and I've never met one who was even aware of, much less in support of, the "prussian model." I have kids in school, and consequently know lots of kids. I've never noticed that the ones who are more successful in school, are more authoritarian.

The "prussian model" strikes me as an urban legend.

> It's not entirely uncommon that people feel they learn way better outside of school. I'd say that's a pretty huge indication of failure, given the fact that the entire purpose of school is learning.

i did fine in school, but until my upper-level college courses, i learned much more and more thoroughly from internet research and self-guided reading. i'm a millenial, so maybe things were different for older generations, but i also lived in what was considered a very good school district. i can hardly remember anything i learned in high school 10-15 years ago, but i can easily talk about the books i read at the time.

well, i can think of an exception -- i had an excellent english teacher that taught me how to write much better essays.

Well, your real life example goes back to first post in this thread, which is that motivation is at least half the battle (or even the only battle). You were not motivated by school, but your were motivated in specific books, so you remember those. And, lucky you, you had a motivator as an english teacher, while I which I had one of those...

Tl;dr: don't compare yourself to polymaths unless you are one.

When I was doing a little research on great mathematicians, I found exactly the opposite: 90% was either home schooled or had education at some elite institution.

Edison's lack of education did impair his work and did cause him extra work. He'd get results by taking the long way of trial and error rather than more directly by calculation. He also employed mathematicians and other college educated engineers and scientists to compensate for his lack.

Funny you mention Farragut, though not British I often bring up Nelson or Churchill.

> It would be more helpful to ditch the 'myth' that age-segregated classrooms are an improvement over the one-room school house. Modern schooling forces children to learn on the teacher's schedule.

I have two kids in a public school. The teachers thus far have been extremely child-focused to the extent possible while still adhering to the common-core standards. The school has a number of mixed grade classes, e.g K-1, 1-2, 2-3, and the mix changes each year based on the needs of the kids. So my experience does not support your generalization of modern schooling.

Nor does it support the ideas in Gatto's main thesis. Perhaps in the 90's his thesis was true, but these teachers are up to date on recent research and know how to build non-provisional self esteem, for example. They encourage the expression and self-management of emotions. Curricula are often built around a central unifying topic, for example unifying math, reading, and writing around a core event. Rote memorization plays a minimal role - often built in to the daily activities in a why that the students may not realize.

I have also observed, during my weekly parent-volunteer hours, that the teachers are highly specialized and well trained. There is so much more to it than just 'learning styles' and such. They truly excel at managing behaviors and emotions, and creating engaging and multi-subject curricula. Most students do not show up ready to learn on any given day - and getting through to them requires extreme patience and tremendous creativity. Perhaps Gatto had unengaged and indifferent teachers - it seems that these would 'dumb down' students. Fortunately this has not been my experience.

Your experience with two children vs Gatto's experience with hundreds (thousands?) as a public school teacher for years.

My experience is with several classes and teachers, so a combined total of probably 100 kids in different classes over several years - but you make a valid point.

It's quite possible that in the decades since his work that his criticisms have caused change to occur.

You have found an extremely unusual and remarkable public school.

Common core is a pretty interesting curriculum. There is something similar for science (I don't remember the name). Arizona teaches Common Core math but not the science version of it. It links things together across subjects at a higher density ... stuff that, when I was a kid, I did on my own time. I think I would have enjoyed Common Core a lot as a kid.

Finland has an education program that goes along the same lines that cuts across all of the subject matters.

The downside is that common core is great for neurotypical kids ... and not a kid on the Autism spectrum.

Common core is also weak on drills and practice. It's great for learning but not for mastery. That's me being raised in a first-generation Taiwanese family and my martial arts experience in my 20s talking. Without the drilling that happens after learning, the kid never develops sufficient grit and discipline. There is a tendency to short-circuit. You think you can stop when you "learned" it, and never dive deeper. You fool yourself into thinking you know the material, but you don't. (Personal experience). Basic skills are not practiced to the point of effortlessness, so building advanced skills on top of basic skills is fraught.

> Common core is a pretty interesting curriculum.

Common Core is a set of standards that curricula need to meet, not a curriculum. It may seem nitpicky, but it's an important distinction considering the amount of hate lumped on to Common Core because of shitty curricula that implement it.

I think the standards are great, and well-designed curricula (as it sounds like Arizona has), are fantastic.

When my kids were starting school, I looked up Common Core. At the time, some of the states had published their standards. My impression was that the standards seemed remarkably "normal" if I may use that word. It was pretty much the same subject matter that I learned in school as a kid.

My kids had a similar experience at their public school. One possible variable to consider is that the school is in a neighborhood with a high percentage of educated parents, who are pretty vocal in their demands. A lot of kids get bumped up by a grade, or put in mixed grade classes -- often in response to discipline problems in the classroom.

I find it interesting that martial arts classes are not taught that way.

Things are loosely segregated by aptitude but proximity allows you to see what's coming next and overhear those behind you (in which case you might learn something you didn't quite get the first time, or understand it with more nuance now)

Most (chinese/japanes) MA classes are loosely based around the teachings of Confucius.

The basics of his paedagogics are based on a family-like bond between Teachers and Students. Its very different to the western model of education be it the traditional western style or the "Progressive Education" or its latest incarnation.

I do not want kids who learn only what they are interested in. I know too many adults who don't like to read, hate math... - they never would have learned to read or do basic math if they had not been forced at some point.

Learning what you are interested in is fine when you have the basics and want to fill some time. It doesn't matter to me if you learn to welding or piano - both are interesting and could potentially make you money, but neither is core to life. You could add hundreds of other things to that list.

Learning can start with your interested, but at some time you will realize something is hard. At that point you need something higher to force you to buckle down and study when it isn't fun anymore. I think all great piano players can tell you that there was a time their tried to stop playing completely and their parents didn't allow it.

I think you're missing the point, maybe because you too went through a traditional school? Most kids in traditional schools who don't want to do math or read because they don't have something hard or interesting to motivate them. But in free school settings the focus is first on what you want to accomplish and then how to do that, which most often then involves learning to read, write and math as an avenue to achieve something greater. It's similar to your pianist example but the motivation is internal. I wouldn't want to force any child to continue doing something they don't like just because I see value in it. I highly doubt "all great piano players" have been coerced that way. And those who have are probably out of touch with what they really want to be doing. Just because you can be great at something doesn't make it your calling.

The assumption you're making is that it's always possible and easy to create that motivation.

I totally agree that motivated student studies 100x better, I just think it's impossible to motivate student 100% of time. A teacher that is able to achieve 50% motivation deserves the Medal of Honor. In the end, it all boils down to teachers. Good teachers worth gold by weight.

From my own life example: I was literally forced to learn some subjects in college (I'm mathematician), but 10 years later I'm re-studying the same subjects, now on my own. And it really helps that I learned them previously, as I already have a global overlook of the whole area, and know where I am, what should work, and what must be too hard to try.

The biggest point you missed is that I am talking about non traditional schooling. Of course things are easier when you previously learned them. You're also missing that I'm talking about encouraging what someone already wants to learn. I didn't learn computer science until I was 24, but now I'm employed as a software engineer. I only needed my own internal motivation to study. There's no reason you couldn't be a mathematician later in life without previously having studied mathematics. It's just an excuse to think you couldn't do it without having been forced to earlier.

I always disliked learning foreign languages, but the hell I am happy that I can speak English. It would be huge disadvantage now and it would be harder to learn it now. I was never particularly interested in history, but I am glad they taught me some basics in elementary school. I could go on.

You assume that only top level knowledge matters. You also assume that every kid will be interested in everything, if only the teacher and environment did everything perfectly. Neither is true.

It is possible to learn things you are not particularly excited about. It is also possible to become later on interested in something you was not excited about initially. Things tend to become easier and more pleasant once you learned basics, learning basics part is the hardest one.

"But in free school settings the focus is first on what you want to accomplish and then how to do that, which most often then involves learning to read, write and math as an avenue to achieve something greater."

I prefer teachers who can make kids interested in math itself and physics itself and history itself and writing itself even if it is not immediately useful. It wont work on every kid and all kids will like some things more then other things, of course. But starting with assumption that it is not possible for them so lets not even try sound like definition of low expectations.

> You also assume that every kid will be interested in everything, if only the teacher and environment did everything perfectly. Neither is true.

No, I'm saying that the teacher/school environment is contaminated and we don't need it. It's imperfect, so let's get rid of it. It can't be made perfect.

I'm saying that everyone has something they are naturally interested in. Even if that's just being on Facebook. Eventually you'll learn to read if you want to browse Facebook.

> It is possible to learn things you are not particularly excited about. It is also possible to become later on interested in something you was not excited about initially.

Yes, that's true. But it doesn't mean that's the only way.

> I prefer teachers who can make kids interested in math itself and physics itself and history itself and writing itself even if it is not immediately useful.

Uhm, why? There's no real reason.

> But starting with assumption that it is not possible for them so lets not even try sound like definition of low expectations.

I didn't say it's not possible. I said it doesn't work well. There are countless examples of being taught something we don't like and yet we're good at it.

Yes, you're grateful for being encouraged to learn English in school, but you could have just as well learned it through your own motivation.

"Most kids in traditional schools who don't want to do math or read because they don't have something hard or interesting to motivate them."

Yeah, I'm gonna call shenanigans here. SO is a HS teacher, her kids really really really do not want to learn. They want to either play Minecraft, snapchat their genitals to each other, watch porn, or just gossip between themselves. Oh and drugs and sex in the bathroom, as usual. Occasionally, they turn to real crime and assault each other (one is still in a coma), pimp themselves out on Instagram for money (either sex), or hurt themselves (suicide clusters, it's 'a thing' now [1]). For about 1/3rd of her kids, if they come to school stoned to Pluto or drunk as skunks, that's a victory; at least they came to school and weren't out committing felonies or having felonies committed against them.

Look, the super-crunchy idea of kids that are naturally curious is really just ... rich and white. Like, kids in an inner city/dense urban environment have waaaaaay more serous shit to deal with. They get raped habitually by their mother's many 'boyfriends', they don't eat all weekend and if they do it's 2 bags of Cheetos, they have drugs forced on them by family members that really do think pot is medicine and can cure everything, their parents think school is nonsense and they should start working the fields to earn something for the family, etc. You ideas are great, but that is not how life is these days, poverty and racism fucking suck.

[1] Not my SO's state, but a good overview: http://www.newsweek.com/2016/10/28/teen-suicide-contagious-c...

> SO is a HS teacher, her kids really really really do not want to learn. ... [lots of examples of bad behavior at school and awful things that happen to kids]

Your point does seem reasonable that many kids would not thrive at all in a self-directed learning environment. But maybe you also (unintentionally) make the point that they shouldn't be in the traditional school either?

What is the function of the traditional school for students whose motivations are so far apart from the school's? Merely to detain them to avoid the bad behavior near their homes? Do those kids grow up to be adults who think "thank goodness I went to high school otherwise I would have done yet more crime+drugs?"

I think that's spot on, additionally I don't see why if someone identifies a child that has interests and WANTS to learn should be in the school similar to that either.

Yeah, so Betsy DeVos is like a broken clock here; she is narrowly right but for all the wrong reasons. Charter schools are heavily used in a neighboring school district, most are publicly funded though. They are doing great there. Many many reasons also come into that issue, but suffice to say that school uniforms, school lunches, strict no-phone policies, and a lack of a restorative-justice model really do help. Well that and a lack of racist elderly turbo-republican voters that will never raise a levy for new taxes for the schools. As I say in another comment, the main issue here is the poverty. I have no idea how to solve that, but I know chromebooks aren't a part of it.

Yeah, we're bitter, we know.

I think the biggest factor in the success of those schools isn't any specific policy. It's the selection bias. These kids have at least one parent/guardian that cares enough to put in the minimal effort required to get the kid in a different school. Some charters require parent volunteers, which ups the bar again. What actually happens in school might not matter as much as having the home support you need to be successful.

> SO is a HS teacher, her kids really really really do not want to learn

At the High School level, you've got prejudices built from years of engagement with the school system involved. If the schools in general are failing to engage appropriately, by that time large numbers of students are irrevocably alienated.

> Look, the super-crunchy idea of kids that are naturally curious is really just ... rich and white.

No, it's not, though privileged home environment (in rough order of importance, educated, rich, and white) all play a role both in preserving and enhancing that natural trait until hitting school (and through it, when the school experience is negative) and in making it less likely that outside social influences will interfere with realizing it, it's pretty clear that the basic inclination is universal.

> They get raped habitually by their mother's many 'boyfriends', they don't eat all weekend and if they do it's 2 bags of Cheetos, they have drugs forced on them by family members that really do think pot is medicine and can cure everything, their parents think school is nonsense and they should start working the fields to earn something for the family, etc.

Its certainly true (and I'm find of saying it) that the biggest problems in education are outside of the school system.

That does not mean, however, that the problems inside the school systems should be ignored (as difficult as they are, they are often far easier to address than the outside problems.)

Ok, 'education' is more than Calc and AP-US History, it's learning to live in your world and make of it what you will. Education does not start nor stop at the classroom door, it's an all-day and all-night thing. You are 'educated' by your whole community, including the cops that keep putting your step-dad in jail and your math teacher and your pastor, everyone.

So, trying to distance the classroom from the very real problems that these kids have outside of it is nonsense. You just cannot learn math without food in your belly or a 'safe' home, like, this is Maslow 101 stuff. A neighboring school district has a free/reduced breakfast and lunch program and they are kicking ass in SAT scores relative to my SO's school. You can polish the inner workings of a school to a mirror shine, but if the kids got no sleep or their mom just got shot up and died, it is totally mute.

You are saying that by the time the kids reach HS, if they are this damaged, just triage them. Well, this is kinda being put into practice these days. It depends on school district, but yeah, it's kinda charter school or bust now. Those folks that are too damaged to learn about King George from ~250 years ago are kinda just left behind. How that triage method figures into the 2016 election should be obvious in the results we have.

Look, you are on HN, I get the mindset here, you can just 'process' and 'app' your way out of any problem. If you haven't yet done so, work harder, take more LSD micro-doses, Juicero it, like, I get this a lot on here. But if you really are interested in the schools of this country, then you gotta listen to the teachers and admins and the kids.

Shit. Is. Fucked. Yo.

Why? Literally millions of reasons from literally millions of districts and millions of students. Where we are the issue is simple: poverty. Where you are, who knows. Go to your next PTA meeting in August and try to find out.

> You are saying that by the time the kids reach HS, if they are this damaged, just triage them

No, I'm saying that the attitudes of kids currently in high school and their unsuitability for certsin changes in educational methods is not indicative of the utility of changes in educational methods introduced earlier.

You have essentially invented a line of argument entirely unrelated to anything I actually.wrotr to argue against. I don't disagree with any of what you write, it's just entirely irrelevant to the post you are responding to, as it seems to be a rebuttal of an argument that exists in your kind, fueled by expectations driven by a stereotype you explicitly describe yourself as holding of the HN community.

>Yeah, I'm gonna call shenanigans here. SO is a HS teacher, her kids really really really do not want to learn. They want to either play Minecraft, snapchat their genitals to each other, watch porn, or just gossip between themselves. Oh and drugs and sex in the bathroom, as usual. Occasionally, they turn to real crime and assault each other (one is still in a coma), pimp themselves out on Instagram for money (either sex), or hurt themselves (suicide clusters, it's 'a thing' now [1]). For about 1/3rd of her kids, if they come to school stoned to Pluto or drunk as skunks, that's a victory; at least they came to school and weren't out committing felonies or having felonies committed against them.

What you're describing is not a "kids" issue, but a mixture of culture and poor school policies. Schools are likely part of the problem you're describing.

Yes. You've proven my point exactly. Those kids don't have something that's interesting for them outside of Minecraft, snapchat etc. that you describe.

It's not the teachers job to find something interesting for children. I'm advocating for the abandoning of schooling as it is, so you're seeing it backwards to think that what I'm saying means to find this motivation in the current setting. It won't be found there.

> Look, the super-crunchy idea of kids that are naturally curious is really just ... rich and white. Like, kids in an inner city/dense urban environment have waaaaaay more serous shit to deal with.

Yes, and if they didn't have that shit to deal with, then they WOULD be more curious about life. Duh. It's only white because whites often don't have to face that shit. But no, you're wrong here. Every child is naturally curious about SOMETHING. Even playing Minecraft or watching porn involves a curiosity, however un/healthy.

Take those kids out of that environment (which school actually contributes a major part) and yes, they'd discover their own natural interests. Even if that's still Minecraft, that's fine.

Again, I'm advocating abandoning schooling as it is. I don't mean that we should find what motivates kids in the current school setting, but that letting go of the current school setting will allow the space for children to find their own interests.

>I do not want kids who learn only what they are interested in. I know too many adults who don't like to read, hate math... - they never would have learned to read or do basic math if they had not been forced at some point.

I agree with you, although I wonder if that's what the parent is saying because one room school houses did teach all subjects. I think the parent is just advocating a more self-directed style of learning that still includes a full curriculum and some level of adult direction and oversight.

I was feral and learned what I wanted and was economically very successful even with no template (2 parents with union labor jobs... responsibility and ethics but not saving), to where I quit going to high school because I was making good money coding (2002). Granted my public school wasn't great (eg. stabbings at football games) and I was suspended with comments like "flip me a good burger someday" from the V. Principal, so I wasn't super engaged.

I went from pre-Algebra to Linear Algebra in a few years in a university in my mid-20s before I got into distributed systems etc, but well after I was a notable programmer. If I'd had /any/ early guidance I'd have made many fewer missteps, but I've done extraordinarily well given where I came from thanks to the help of mentors I met along the way. If you keep kicking a dog it will get out of its situation at the first opportunity, with vigor. Fighting for survival is an alien concept to most of us, of course, so it seems insane. And look how shitty I'm doing, it doesn't work!

If I have kids I'm pretty sure I'll be an illegal parent.

> I know too many adults who don't like to read, hate math... - they never would have learned to read or do basic math if they had not been forced at some point.

I only liked to learn math in 9th grade, a little late, relatively speaking. It all came down to me changing teachers, it turns out my high-school math teacher was way better at doing his job compared to the teacher I had previously had. Had I been asked before 9th grade if I had had any interest in math I would had most certainly said "no".

I personally loved math. My family instilled strong academic values in me since my childhood to the point where I had an interest and genuine curiosity in math, science, etc.

Rigid schooling totally ruined that for me. Mindless repetition of the most boring parts of each subject hammered into you over and over until you lose interest or totally disassociate it with the creative/curious part of your brain.

Luckily, I recovered my love for math, engineering, science in college, but I do wonder how much more I could have learned if I encountered that style of teaching from grades 5-12.

Anyways, my view is they should require certain core subjects, but use periodic testing of knowledge and applied projects rather than having grades be dependent on the teacher's style (pop quizzes, hours of homework a night for one subject).

What parts of formal education is 'core to life'? Genuine question.

I question the value of obligatory education at all in it's current state. What do you get for your 10+ years? The only indispensable skills gained of concrete benefit for most citizens are the ability to read and write. Otherwise, some general notions that may or may not be of use in your life.

I have spent most of my life in education and independent study, and am a proponent of learning and knowledge. But I have also spent time with people without formal education. They are often sharp and inquisitive individuals, and if they don't know about how to prove contorted geometric theorems that we do in high school, so what?

Just a train of thought.

I've discussed the same thing in other threads. It always comes down to some notion that people have to learn skills to exist in society. This is true but I've always argued with educators and parents that the time for that is grade or middle school. If people cant do Calc or don't know where the Battle of Bunker Hill actually took place society will not suffer. My generation should be the last to have this nonsense crammed down out throats.

I am a strong supporter of universal liberal-arts education with a focus on critical thinking.

The reasoning is simple: merely being able to "read and write" is not enough to be a functioning citizen of a democracy. Effective citizenship requires the ability to read for comprehension and critique, to write effectively and persuasively, to reason about complex issues for which there may well be insufficient evidence to establish obvious and objective correct answers, to recognize ideas and philosophies and patterns from history.

Merely being able to, say, read a utility bill or restaurant menu, or write a short email, do not suffice. And many people will, left to their own devices, learn to do little more than those, if they even learn as much as that (whether due to inclination or lack of opportunity).

I don't disagree. But here's another point. In my view, the most fundamental things to teach would be the ability to keep an open mind, and intellectual honesty (being able to put aside your ego and admitting where your argument falls short). Also a respect for learning and education, even without the expectation of a concrete financial reward. Despite universal schooling, I would say these values are anything but universal, at least where I grew up.

I've got two daughters who are not going through the school system. They can both read and do basic math just fine even though they were never forced at any point. They've also learned things at a different ages.

My oldest who is just about to turn 18 is an amazingly talented artist/designer. She has skills in those areas that blow away anything I've seen from someone her age (or any age) and she has spent a lot more time honing those skills than she would be able to if she went to school. She is going into a product design program (accepted based on her portfolio). She doesn't know any calculus and that's not a problem. She knows what calculus is at least which is more than can be said for a lot of people and if she ever ends up needing that I'm sure she could pick it up.

Forcing someone to learn something they're not interested in generally has a pretty poor outcome. How many great piano players HATE playing the piano? Zero. It's true that some of them might have been forced at some time to practice more but it's definitely not true that if you take the average child and just force them to play the piano they're going to become great. More likely to become psychopaths IMO. And how exactly do you force them?

How would you like if we put you to "piano camp" for the next 6 years? Or pick the subject you're least interested in... We need to respect people's individuality and kids are people too... That doesn't mean you can't push them sometimes.

Congrats on that! Always nice to hear an alternative education story, as I was homeschooled myself.

I just wanted to say that calculus in today's society, for most people, is irrelevant. In day to day stuff for most people it's just not necessary. Unless you're doing something like engineering.

Statistics and probability are infinitely more useful and are what should be emphasized over calculus. Some schools offer that choice but calculus as a requirement is a fail.

how do you learn probability without calculus ? the definition of the mean for continuous distributions involve an integral.

I hated math... this propaganda learning, like lyrics of logics, you where forced to recitate. But i loved game-designing, and that desire got me through my first year on university - and then one day i realized that math is just a hammer, a fascinating paintbrush and i had walls full of nails.

I will never become a toolsmith, but forcing people is bad- every creature has intrinsic motivation for something, you need to hack that motivation, and piggyback the thirst for knowledge to that.

We should also ditch the myth that "you can be anything you want to be."

Not everyone has the skills, ability, or temperament to be a [choose: doctor, janitor, software developer, plumber, assassin, author, etc] and be successful at it. And there's nothing wrong with that. Not everyone should go to [choose: college, vocational school, Hollywood].

Let's stop with the idea that there is One True Way to be "successful" and encourage kids to experiment, learn, and help them explore what they're good at not what we want them to be good at.

> It would be more helpful to ditch the 'myth' that age-segregated classrooms are an improvement over the one-room school house.

They still mix ages in Montessori schools. There is a stronger self-learning culture, including peer-to-peer collaborations and older children playing a mentorship role to younger ones. The teachers observe, faciliate and are there whenever they are needed.

It's not always so rosy in real life though. One school I volunteered at actually had to do more age-segregated classes (rather than lump Lower Primary together) because it was way too disruptive to mix 6 - 9 years old together. To add context, since the school was specifically for disadvantaged children, most (especially refugees) either join much later or stop suddenly, so couldn't fully benefit from the Montessori system.

> It used to be that education was something people did for themselves.

It is easy to identify exceptions (replication crisis, intrusion of managerial activities), but this motivation also applies at the higher levels - ie phd candidature and above. The goal is self-directed research within a chosen field to produce new knowledge.

This myth has always particularly annoyed me. It's like when people say "I'm a visual learner". Of course you are. You are a human being. We all learn things more effectively when they are displayed visually in an intuitive way. It's the same mindset that feeds into people thinking they "just aren't a math person". You're not special, it's just pop science BS designed to make people feel better in their laziness.

I think there can be some merit to "styles". Personally I have a hard time focusing when reading something (possibly adult ADD but I haven't sought a professional opinion) which is why I find YouTube videos much more helpful if I am to learn something.

Do you think your experience is different from the norm?

It's at least different to mine. I generally learn much better from reading than watching a video, instructor, etc. I also generally learn better through broader reading than doing exercises and such

This "style" is just some habits of your attention. Your attention was trained to focus on movie, but was not trained enough to focus on book. You can use some behavioral training approaches to make youself attentive while reading (without much effort), or inattentive while watching movies. So this "style" is no more than a habit, that reinforces itself.

This is not some kind of disorder, its just habits. I cannot attentively watch movies full of speaking heads, where no guns, fires, fights and other funny things. I would better read book, article, or something like. And this is not disorder also, just a habit. If I'll need to use movies for learning, I train my attention to concentrate on movies. Its not a problem, though it needs some time and effort.

I'm likely mildly dyslexic. I get my left and right mixed up. I am horrible at spelling, even after practice. I'm nearly 39. I share much of the same habits as the poster - reading is much better if I've gotten the basics introduced orally. Reading in a quiet library? I hear every paper shuffle and I have to start the paragraph or page over again. I already have to read some texts a few times to get a bit of substance from it. Some things, I simply can't learn by myself from reading, even if I'm interested in the subject.

And I actually enjoy reading. It just goes slowly and takes a lot of mental effort especially if it is something long or involved.

Learning to focus attention correctly is only part of the issue for some of us. For myself, I wish they would have caught my stuff when I was a kid instead of figuring this stuff out trying to learn the language of a country I moved to.

Yeah, the myth persists because the idea of learning styles is intuitively appealing: people do have varying preferences for how they learn. The basic problems are that 1. evidence doesn’t support the hypothesis that people naturally cluster into distinct & consistent learning-style groups, and 2. someone’s preference isn’t necessarily what will be most effective for them.

For those wondering what is meant by learning styles. I've written this in the past:

Commonly, with learning styles a student was considered an auditory, visual, or kinesthetic learner. Timmy is an auditory leaner? He should learn to calculate voltage through lectures and song.

Timmy is a visual learner? He should learn to calculate voltage through pictures and diagrams.

Timmy is a kinesthetic learner? He should learn to calculate voltage through dance.

It's a shallow understanding of how learning really happens. No one learned how to throw a football by singing about it and no one has a strong understanding of circuits and how to design them just by listening to lectures.

I think knowledge about auditory, visual, or kinesthetic is still very useful. For example, I mainly learn by doing or reading. If someone gives me a lecture I will remember almost nothing later.

It's not the answer to everything but it helps to think about it..

It doesn't really help, though. When a student fails to learn something, it doesn't do any good to sit around wondering what "kind of learner" they are. You need to figure out what actually stopped then from learning. Students need to be able to learn from the world they live in, not from some meticulously sterilized learning laboratory.

If you can't learn from a lecture, you need to solve that problem by figuring out how to actually change yourself to learn from a lecture, not by avoiding lectures. You need to understand what can actually be learned from a lecture and what needs additional outside experience.

The world we live in is not fixed, but can be changed. I don't think it makes sense to bang your head against a limitation you have but instead you should find ways to work around. For the students who doesn't do well with lectures it may mean to read a book or get some hands-on experience. For the teacher it may mean to give handouts before the lecture or offer some hands-on lab.

It depends who "you" are. If you are a student, your job is to maximize your learning given the instruction provided [0]. If you are a teacher, your job is to maximize your teaching given your students ability. One way to do this might be to train the student to learn a certain way. Another way to do this might be to train yourself to teach a certain way. The optimal solution probably involves having both students trained to learn, and teachers trained to teach. This begs the question of what "optimal teaching" is. More specifically, is optimal teaching lectures? I don't know the answer to this question, but it sure is useful to have scientists looking into it.

>Students need to be able to learn from the world they live in, not from some meticulously sterilized learning laboratory.

So, not from lectures?

[0] or seek out more appropriate instruction.

Lectures serve a purpose. People tend treat them like comedy shows where they get a series of punchlines and hope it gives them a satisfying giggle of enlightenment. You're supposed to walk into a lecture already knowing the punchlines. Then you can spend that time exploring how to optimally organize the information in your brain and cleaning up misunderstandings. It is almost impossible to pay attention to a full lecture. Your mind will wander. That's why you have to have a cursory familiarity before you approach them. And then you can enjoy having your mind wander, because it will wander into good questions, insights, and interesting relationships. Learning will happen. If you're prepared.

If someone isn't learning during a lecture, it's because they're not spending enough time on the subject outside of the lectures. It's not because they have an alternative "learning style". That would be like saying sitting on the couch is an "alternative dancing style." It's not a matter of style, it's a matter of understanding where you have to put your effort to achieve those goals. Maybe they weren't taught to do it. Maybe they've just never tried. Maybe things are in the way.

In the end, lectures are cheap. And this matters. You need to learn how to extract good knowledge from cheap sources. If you can't do that, then good luck convincing anybody to invest more in you over those that can.

I am not defending the concept of "learning styles"; the scientists cited in the article are undoubtedly more qualified that I on that subject. I was responding to the claim that the problem is students who cannot learn from lectures, and the solution is to teach children to learn from lectures. That might be the case; but I was pointing out that another option to consider was changing our method of instruction (either away from lectures entirely, to a hybrid system, or even to a better form of lectures); and it is counter productive to dismiss this path out of hand.

I will also point out that the article is an attack on "learning styles", not a defense of lectures. Responding to some of your points:

>You're supposed to walk into a lecture already knowing the punchlines.

This was not my experience through high-school. Most of my class's in high-school and before would assign readings after the corresponding lecture; often times I would not even know what to study before the lecture.

Even in college my experience is different. Ignoring the useless lectures, I found that most of my lectures were more useful before I studied the material. This is probably heavily biased by subject matter: most of my useful lectures are in math, where the lecture serves as a broad overview of the material, which serves as a foundation for when I open the textbook to dig into the details. [0].

In contrast, in my linguistic classes, it is essential that I read the material before class: the lecture would simply not make sense without the reading, and what was being presented in lecture is often not present in the textbook. Having said that, and thinking more about those classes, it seems like my linguistics professors are aware of these issues: while textbook readings come before lectures, research paper readings are almost always come between lectures (eg. we would talk about an experiment and the results, then read the paper at home, then talk about the results again).

Again, the question is not lectures vs learning styles. The question in the article is "learning styles?", to which the answer seems to be no. This does not necessarily mean that the answer is lectures. And it almost certainly does not mean lectures in their current form.

[0] As an aside, this is probably a deficit in my ability to learn math. The "correct" way to learn math is to first go over the material once, then go back and understand the material in a second go-through. I have trouble doing the first step without the lecture environment forcing me not to jump straight to the second.

Often enough the lecturer is the problem and cannot just be changed. That's a bold claim, sure, but in my experience not an uncommon opinion. "Lectures" I guess is directed at university classes, so your second paragraph seems slightly detached from the first one and from the topic of primary education.

> For example, I mainly learn by doing or reading. If someone gives me a lecture I will remember almost nothing later.

The myth here is that you might think you're different than others in this regard. Pretty much every human can easily space out during a lecture. Pretty much every human can learn something better if they do it themselves or can understand a graph better than a list of numbers. Everyone is a visual learner, everyone learns by doing. A lesson should incorporate all of these aspects.

I am different from others. I have a combination of genetic traits plus life experience that makes me different. So is everybody else different from others. Some more extroverted, some more introverted. Some learn better visually, some kinesthetic, some auditive. This doesn't mean someone is exclusively visual but there certainly are preferences.

People having preferences doesn't mean it's good for them to always have those preferences catered to or that their preferences actually match any empirical evidence evaluating their personal learning performance. It's even possible that people might decide "I don't learn this way" and tune out in situations where they could still learn if they latch onto only using their preferred "style."

You cannot learn dancing by singing, whatever preferences you have. You have to dance. That's what the article is about.

I can learn dancing by observing other dancers or I can learn dancing by someone telling me the steps. Some people prefer the first approach, some the second. There is no single way to learn dancing.

You actually learned dancing by having someone telling you the steps? What dance exactly, and how did they explain the steps? What skill level did you achieve?

I thought most people learn dancing by someone telling them the steps. At least in ballroom dancing. How do they explain the steps? "left, left, right, 1,2,3,4 turn" or similar. I never got really good but I think was a competent dancer.

In any case, this thread is not fun anymore. Either I am totally weird or there is some communication going wrong.

> I thought most people learn dancing by someone telling them the steps.

No. Most people learn dancing by watching and repeating, with some explanation along with it.

> At least in ballroom dancing. How do they explain the steps?

In large part by demonstration (there's description that goes along, but the demonstration is primary.) Source: I've nearly completed a long course of instruction for ballroom dance teachers, from a well-regarded teacher-of-teachers, and have taken lots of ballroom dance classes, some from internationally-recognized teachers.

> "left, left, right, 1,2,3,4 turn" or similar.

That's more how they cue students going through a pattern that's been demonstrated than how they explain a pattern. You can explain a pattern in words without demonstration (manuals do this, for instance), but that's usually done as reference material that accompanied traditional teaching-by-demonstration (or, for auto-didacts, videos in place of in-person demonstration), and it sucks on its own; you need a lot of contextual knowledge to get value out of it.

Teaching dance by steps is like teaching racing by telling the student to turn left 4 times each lap.

Nobody fully learns dancing by either of those methods. To be a dancer, one must learn dance by dancing.

Actually, both the ways you describe don't work. Observing other dancers is not helpful unless you already have a mental framework to know what you should be observing. Learning to dance by being told steps is ineffective because it doesn't teach you how to actually interact with other dancers, maintain flow, handle the unexpected, or feel where your body mechanics are.

Based on teaching a lot of people to dance and watching a lot of other teaching, the most effective thing I have found is to put someone in a practice dance hold (both people's arms on the other's shoulders, mostly straight) and sway back and forth until they start to feel body connection. Then start to change the magnitude of the sway, make a few simple steps with no warning, just keeping them rooted in the kinesthetic sense of connection. And when that connection is strong enough, bring them into close hold and just start into a waltz. I will have to massively overcompensate on turns initially because they don't know how to do them, but after a few turns around the room, they're ready for that correction. Left turns don't happen that first time out. Then take them contradancing, where they will be guided through interactions among lots of dancers and given a feel for flow. Add something like Renaissance or Scottish low country and you get step work. Only at this point is it useful to start observing other dancers or being told things.

> I can learn dancing by observing other dancers

You could always tell the self-taught ones. Their mental image of what their dance looked like did not match what others saw. That's because what you think you see is not what the actual movement is.

I know it's hard to believe, but it's true. A lot of dance movement is awkward and contorted, but it looks natural and fluid.

> Some learn better visually, some kinesthetic, some auditive.

That's the exact myth that actual research has shown is mostly false.

> This doesn't mean someone is exclusively visual but there certainly are preferences.

There are certainly preferences (in some part, this is a product of people buying into the myth), but the research keeps showing that catering to those preferences doesn't actually improve learning, and actually makes it worse compared to balanced approaches which address multiple modes rather than focussing on a learners perceived "preferred" mode.

For different people each one of those methods might he easier than the other.

I pay attention in lectures and meeting never take notes and that forces me to take everything in and engage fully. Reading and learning is more difficult because it involved in two activities .

Is reading "visual"? Lectures are auditory? Although you can also see the lecturer probably...

Why not just say you learn better by reading? What is gained by dubiously subjectively categorizing everything into just "auditory", "visual", or "kinesthetic"?

No one gets anything straight from the lecture though. I don't know a single person who managed to follow a physics lecture course all the way through without getting lost at some point. I think the most important part of learning is repetition, you have to learn the content multiple times before it fully sinks in. Once from the lectures, then going through the lecture notes, then (maybe) the book, then problems, then exam questions. Repetition is key

One of the main problems they identify in the article is lack of flexibility in students who are approached as one style of learner. Rather than narrowing it to one style per student, maybe the teachers could have audio, video, written, and hands-on experiences mixed in for all students. Then, if a particular student needs extra help, that student might get some reinforcement in a particular style.

I haven't done the research, but it may be just as important based on the anecdotal evidence that certain types of lesson are more suited to different styles of teaching as much or more than the students are. It may even be that Timmy learns history better by reading while Tommy gets a better sense by looking at maps while talking about it, but Tommy can picture geography pretty well in his head while Timmy needs lots of diagrams.

> Timmy is a kinesthetic learner? He should learn to calculate voltage through dance

I think learning to calculate voltage kinesthetically means that Timmy should use his hands to build a little circuit, and be told or shown how the voltage levels work while he's building the thing.

You would think, but every material I've seen or been taught about learning styles is that hands on is separate from kinesthetic learning. Kinesthetic really is like dancing, hand movements, and other physical mnemonics.

Learning styles™ really are that dumb.

A much welcome public statement on this matter. When I was teaching and I chanced upon a colleague who was overzealous about the learning styles theory, I used to respond - if you had a child whom you pegged or tested as a "visual learner" and you wanted to teach him how to distinguish between different bird calls, you'd seriously have him do something like study oscilloscope graphs of the sound waves rather than having him actually listen to the calls?

Taken to its logical conclusion, it defies reason and even basic experience that any knowledge and skills can be better transmitted when conveyed in the modality that lies in learner's unique strengths.

> oscilloscope graphs of the sound waves

I agree with your point in respect to the over-emphasis of particular leaning styles in the classroom.

At the same time the oscilloscope example is intriguing, since I could easily imagine research scientists using FFT, and wavelet decomposition to classify bird-calls as primary research. So I wonder if there is anything intrinsically wrong with the idea of using an oscilloscope in the classroom at lower-levels as part of a teaching strategy?

Meanwhile drama classes might be trying to get students to mimic bird calls - which also seems like a valid learning experience.

Sure, because in the case where differentiation of very similar signals is necessary, the human ear is too obtuse an organ of measurement. You might show kids the output from such an instrument as a brief exhibit piece in explaining a more relatable scientific fact such a tool would allow us to discover, e.g. that birds can pick out their own chicks' cries from those of their fellow species kin, but that's teaching about the bird's sensitivity. Not developing the learner's ability to analyze that. You would not use an oscilloscope as a means to teach the sparrow's call from the blue jay's from the robin's from the jackdaw's.

> “I think the fad about learning styles faded long ago, and I would be surprised if many schools continued to subscribe to the approach. That said, the notion of making teaching and learning more varied in classrooms is helpful and likely to motivate a wider range of students,” he said.

LOL no. It's faded in research and education-policy nerd circles, maybe. It's still everywhere in pop culture and among actual k-12 educators. Questioning it will likely get you disapproving looks from teachers, principals, and so on.

(at least in the Midwestern US. Like everything else, until someone comes along selling some BS curriculum/training package that tells them it's wrong, they'll continue to think it's true. Source: am married to a teacher who's taught in 3 states, and am [separately] friends with a bunch of others)

I took a hobby related class at the local community college last year and one of the first things the professor had us do was take a quiz to determine our "learning style". For the rest of the semester, she deferred to each person's results when giving personal attention. I had long been aware that learning styles aren't backed up by any real evidence and can even be detrimental, but I figured I'd rather just deal with it than look like the old fogey in the class who thinks he knows everything trying to make the teacher look bad.

At any rate, this kind of junk is alive and well at least where I live.

So, how should kids be taught? Since learning styles are a myth, would it be okay to skip in-person lessons entirely and just move everyone to individual text-based book learning?

After all, it looks like the idea that "someone might learn better in person" or "by discussing things with peers" is complete bunk, and one method should be sufficient for everyone.

Amen! I've been saying this for years. Do you know your MBTI type by any chance?

Yes, it's ISTJ.

I think you're confusing learning with memorization and/or indoctrination? If your lessions are only lecture, discussion, and reading then you can go ahead and skip them and replace them with nothing [1].

It's bunk that some students need lectures and other students need books, but these are only communication tools and they cannot learn knowledge from them.

[1] past the point where learning how to read/listen/discuss is itself the goal of the lesson

You are thinking too broadly about learning styles. Things like practice/hands-on-learning are one good way of teaching, for example.

It's not learning styles as in different styles and methods of teaching and learning that have been debunked. It's Learning Styles™ that have been debunked (i.e. Auditory, visual, kinesthetic).

The letter itself possibly carries more information than the article: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/mar/12/no-evidenc...

And yet, I continue to see anecdotal evidence that something like learning styles do exist. Granted, they don't always fit the classic visual/kinesthetic/auditory classification. For instance, I often learn a new topic best by reading about it, while some friends do better watching videos. And I think we all know that different explanations on hard topics work for different people.

Other people here have talked about stupid things people have done because of a simplistic understanding of learning styles. Ok, fine. Obviously you need to learn a topic in its own medium, and there's limits to what you can teach with song and dance. But let's do enough experiments to actually figure out what's going on, and not throw the baby out with the bathwater. There's clearly something there, IMO, even if it's relatively insignificant.

I think it's more appropriate to say that some people have deficits in taking in information in particular ways. Someone with an auditory processing disorder will not retain spoken information, for instance.

What bugs me about the OP article is that they pan "learning styles" consistently without saying what should be used instead, and I have to assume that the instead is something that only makes sense to neuroscientists and looks a lot like "learning styles" if you explain it to a layman.

All my favourite teachers had one thing in common: passion. They liked their subject and they liked teaching it.

I don't necessarily disagree with the post or the people behind what's being reported, but telling teachers how to teach seems like you're going to pick away at them, and with it their passion for their job.

"[...] research in 2012 among teachers in the UK and Netherlands found that 80% believed individuals learned better when they received information in their preferred learning style."

What a weird way to put it. Do the others think it makes absolutely no difference in what form the information is presented?

Public Schools are horrific squanderings of societal wealth and innumerable years of cognition.

They socialize children into diets that bring on pre-diabetes and diabetes.

It's absolute quackery to say that the massive resources spent have anything near a positive return for most kids.

Schools are for the benefit of administrators and unionized teachers imo.

Schools are for the benefit of parents.

Schools are for the benefit of of people who rarely have anything invested in the growth of any one student.

It's robbing taxpayers, demanding draconian control of kids, both physically and legally. The money that is funneled into "teaching" kids is obscene. Instead of smaller scale private schools, we have black holes of mismanagement that we call public schooling.

And it's for the benefit of people in the ponzi scheme in charge of students. I can't imagine children learning any notable skills.

Think of how it utterly fails black communities. Instead of sex segregated them, and destroying the rationale for petty histrionic behavior, you put teens together and enable peacocking behaviors which destroys classroom ambiance.

Imagine how stupid you have to be to say "public schools are for the benefit of the children" when rich people use private schools as a way to cement social immobility.

It's beyond the pale how many wasted moments exist in the graveyard of bureacratically run education.

The Dunning-Kruger is strong in this thread. So many misconceptions!

This article is a great example of how to write hundreds of words to say "this doesn't work".

This is literally what this article is. "X says learning styles doesn't work", "Y says he's concerned that teachers are taught learning styles even though he thinks they don't work", etc.

I was hoping they would at least quote someone explaining the problem simply and offer a potential solution. Instead, the comments here did a better job at that.

I nominate Sally Weale as a useless journalist.

Debunking popular but bad science is a good thing. It is enough to say that science is bad. You do not need to replace it with another theory.

Personal attacks aren't ok on HN. Even if it's a bad article (which it may be), that's both a non sequitur and a nasty swipe. Please don't post like that here.

Teaching should include a mix of learning styles so everybody gets at least some information in their preferred style as a starting point.

The article is about how learning styles are bunk...

There is a group of scientists claiming to have done experiments proving the idea of learning styles is false. Without more details, I am sceptical.

I went to school in the 1970s and many teachers demanded that all students copy in their notebooks everything they wrote on the blackboard. To me that made going to class useless. I would get more and more behind and at the end of the class would not remember anything - I might as well have just stayed home. Fortunately for me I didn't actually need the classes since just reading the books was enough.

Most of my classmates, on the other hand, learned quite a lot as a side effect of this copying. Some actually would copy a second time from the "scratch notebook" to the "clean notebook" when they got home. That was an important part of their learning style. Those teachers that imposed copying in their classes probably had the same style and thought it would be good for everybody.

When the blackboard got replaced by overhead projectors and then by PowerPoint, copying the text was no longer an option (specially if the lights were dimmed). It also wasn't needed since the teachers would distribute copies of their slides to the class. This style (with its faster pace) was way more effective for me but I could see that many (if not most) other students were learning a lot less.

So if someone has experiments proving that a "one size fits all" teaching method is best, I would like to see it.

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.

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.

" 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.

>> The article is about how learning styles are bunk...

Without citing any evidence or referencing a specific paper or study... I found the irony amusing.

I've found that explaining something in even a slightly different way can make it click for someone. If it were me, I'd advocate a variety of styles be used for everyone rather than try to identify an individuals most preferred. This would expose all of them to different ways of learning - I wonder if there's research showing that to be a good or bad thing.

What is ironic?

This was an article reporting on a letter which links to an organization funding the studies.

This is like being annoyed with an article about solar panel efficiency, that quotes a scientist, not referencing the scientists patents.

It doesn't say exactly that. It says that focusing on teaching a student in a way catered only to their learning style, real or perceived, leads to worse educational outcomes. Having a mix of teaching methods for all students rather than catering narrowly may be allowing the students to be better all-around students.

Teaching children according to their individual “learning style” does not achieve better results and should be ditched by schools in favour of evidence-based practice, according to leading scientists.

So, I am not sure what your describing is actually accurate. Intuitively it seems like presenting the same information in 3 ways is going to work better than 1, but each method has equivalent time to work with so there is zero added redundancy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com