Hacker News Reader

Comment by relaytheurgency | Hacker News Reader

The Learning Style theory is junk with the flimsiest evidence, but tell that to any teaching institute in this arena so obsessed with constructivist ideals. The reason I did not continue on to teach physics was partially due to an insistence that it was teachers who needed to expend more effort to make classes "fit" a student's preferences so that their learning would be a gradual climb. You learn material by flailing, not by floating.

View on HN

Beep beep. Back the truck up.

I am a dyed-in-the-wool constructivist and I think the theory of "Learning Styles" as it's used today is rubbish. It's a mistake to think they're attached at the hip.

By "the theory of Learning Styles", I specifically mean the idea that some people are "auditory learners", "visual learners", "kinesthetic learners", etc. and that part of a teacher's job is to figure out which "learning style" best fits a given student and present them material in a manner consistent with that style.

I'll add that in the "literature" these things are called "learning modalities" and "learning style" refers to something else, but I've never heard someone use "learning style" and not mean learning modality.

It's also ironic that you use the phrase "constructivist ideals."

Constructivism has deep roots in the American philosophical tradition of Pragmatism[1]. C.S. Peirce coined the term "pragmatism" to contrast _specifically_ with the Kant's transcendental idealism. One of it's core epistemological tenets is that the only thing we can be sure of is that certainty is impossible.

In _The Quest for Certainty_[2], JohnDewey himself called out the "fallacy" of philosophers in taking abstract categories (e.g., "Visual Learners") for granted and not seeing them as conceptual tools invented to solve specific problems in a specific context.

Like you, I find it frustrating that many educational thinkers take these concepts for granted and deploy them in a classroom environment as if it would be absurd to ever do anything else. However, if you read any early Pragmatist thinkers like Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., C.S. Peirce, William James, or John Dewey, it's clear that rejection of this maneuver is one of the central themes in everything they write.

    [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism

    [2]: https://archive.org/details/questforcertaint032529mbp

Perhaps I should clarify. I am not claiming that there is a superior educational philosophy. I am only claiming that in most modern educational institutions, constructivism is the practiced philosophy of education and is taught to all teachers. These institutes often also hold a belief in the idea of learning modalities and, contrary to the foundations of constructivism, preach these ideas quite blindly without regard to their flimsy evidence or poor performance when put into practice.

I was agreeing with you while simultaneously pointing out that you, like the folks you're criticizing, are conflating a constructivist model of learning with a handful of specific approach to teaching derived (mistakenly, IMO) from that model.

Just don't throw the constructivist baby out with the bathwater. :)

As a counterpoint, the Logo programming language[1] is an example of a well-executed pedagogical approach informed by constructivist thinking.

    [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logo_%28programming_language%29

Yes, exactly. One can criticize a consequence of a thing without criticizing the thing itself. I did not actually criticize constructivism anywhere. One might criticize, for instance, certain aspects of US economic practice which are derived from capitalism without actually criticizing the economic theory of capitalism. It is possible (probable) that educational institutes, like governments, are merely misusing theory. I don't know why there needs to be any counterpoints, I did not criticize constructivism.

"The reason I did not continue on to teach physics was partially due to an insistence that it was teachers who needed to expend more effort to make classes "fit" a student's preferences so that their learning would be a gradual climb."

What's wrong with that?

"You learn material by flailing, not by floating."

Why do you believe that?

Because in practice it's impossible to do what is being asked. Maybe if your class size was six students, but that's the case basically nowhere. I believe that learning is best achieved when people struggle greatly. If someone is cautiously guided through every problem in life, or in education, they will possess a sense that they know how to do something because they have seen it done by others and they were guided through it a few times. However, when it comes time to actually do the thing they often do not recall it. It's what the article is about. Did you read it?

When I studied physics in college I learned at a much faster rate than I had in the past because I had to often teach myself. I have heard this from others as well. Coddling students and handing them information, letting them climb without falling, seems to yield pretty pathetic results.

"It's what the article is about. Did you read it?"

Arranging a course so that your students never struggle with the material is one thing. Never bending to your students' needs, as a teacher, is another. A teacher can provide a lot of opportunities for the students to struggle with the material. But I think it's ridiculous (and lazy) to teach without any regard for pedagogy, especially with high school students.

I know exactly what the point of the article is. Thanks for asking.

By the way, "cautiously [guiding them] through every problem in life, or in education" communicates a very different thing from "[putting in] more effort to make classes "fit" a student's preferences".

"More" implies that some is already being done, for the most part. I don't want to get into an Internet argument with someone about pedagogy because obviously there's no objectively correct answer. But you can believe what you want to believe and go become a teacher if you'd like. Administrators often want your students to never struggle. This is pushed upon teachers, especially new ones, even in their learning. I was lucky enough not to just have a degree in education so I left pretty quickly, but while I was teaching I was pushed to dumb down my material so that every student could achieve an A. I was told to fit my student's every preference so that they might get an A in the class. Not everyone should get an A in the class.

>I believe that learning is best achieved when people struggle greatly.

I personally find "a bit of struggle" is probably the best way to learn.

There are a few things I have trried to learn, and made it more difficult than need be (Trying to learn JavaScript and Angular together, Spanish classes that were too advanced for my level). I feel like I learned more when I went back and did some more basic JavaScript, and classes that were at the appropriate level for me, rather than taking on too much, and just being overwhelmed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com