The myth of the myth of learning styles(nedbatchelder.com)
nedbatchelder.com
The myth of the myth of learning styles
https://nedbatchelder.com/blog/202309/the_myth_of_the_myth_of_learning_styles.html
109 comments
Thank you for debunking the myth of the myth of the myth of learning styles.
Seriously now, the way I see it, there is a common problem when a general descriptive observation—in this case that some learners subjectively prefer certain learning approaches to a greater or lesser degree—derives into an overly assertive model as to which types of "learning styles" exist, the assertion that each person must fit into each category, and prescriptive assertions as to how each "type" of person learns better. This is common in many other observations that are overly reified into people believing they must fit into a category and believe that identifying as part of it confers predictive power or expectations. This happens in the myriad of personality type models, attachment styles, and, to a lesser extent, even sexual orientations (see how often young people will ask questions online in the vein of “I am a h(eter|om)osexual g(uy|irl) but I am attracted to my (fe)?male friend. Can I still be $1sexual?”).
The legitimate observation of average differences and tendencies, as well as their descriptions, is overshadowed by going too prescriptive. And sometimes, when there is legitimate backlash against these overgeneralisations as happens in "learning styles", the pendulum goes to far the other way and society rejects the initial observation entirely. And yet, in certain circumstances, some people do prefer different ways of learning than others. They may even be correct that, in that given case, they learn better that way. Let's accept the messiness of human diversity without coming up with overly defined boxes.
Seriously now, the way I see it, there is a common problem when a general descriptive observation—in this case that some learners subjectively prefer certain learning approaches to a greater or lesser degree—derives into an overly assertive model as to which types of "learning styles" exist, the assertion that each person must fit into each category, and prescriptive assertions as to how each "type" of person learns better. This is common in many other observations that are overly reified into people believing they must fit into a category and believe that identifying as part of it confers predictive power or expectations. This happens in the myriad of personality type models, attachment styles, and, to a lesser extent, even sexual orientations (see how often young people will ask questions online in the vein of “I am a h(eter|om)osexual g(uy|irl) but I am attracted to my (fe)?male friend. Can I still be $1sexual?”).
The legitimate observation of average differences and tendencies, as well as their descriptions, is overshadowed by going too prescriptive. And sometimes, when there is legitimate backlash against these overgeneralisations as happens in "learning styles", the pendulum goes to far the other way and society rejects the initial observation entirely. And yet, in certain circumstances, some people do prefer different ways of learning than others. They may even be correct that, in that given case, they learn better that way. Let's accept the messiness of human diversity without coming up with overly defined boxes.
Something something the map is not the territory.
To your point about "overly defined boxes," it's a little ironic how 10-15 years ago the prevailing thought in LGBT spaces was (more or less verbatim) "Society wants to fit us all into these rigid boxes, but I say fuck your boxes!" and now it's more like "Society wants to fit us all into rigid boxes, but there's actually a lot more boxes out there that you may not know about, so just keep looking until you find the right box. But you will find a box."
E.g., the extent to which nonbinary has almost become a defined third gender category with its own set of expectations rather than a catch-all for anyone who finds that the main two categories just don't quite cut it.
To your point about "overly defined boxes," it's a little ironic how 10-15 years ago the prevailing thought in LGBT spaces was (more or less verbatim) "Society wants to fit us all into these rigid boxes, but I say fuck your boxes!" and now it's more like "Society wants to fit us all into rigid boxes, but there's actually a lot more boxes out there that you may not know about, so just keep looking until you find the right box. But you will find a box."
E.g., the extent to which nonbinary has almost become a defined third gender category with its own set of expectations rather than a catch-all for anyone who finds that the main two categories just don't quite cut it.
Yes, I often see people putting things into mutually-exclusive categories when I rather think they should be thinking with more of a tag system.
So many people (at least in the USA, but likely everyone) are so bound to an identity that includes X but explicitly excludes Y.
Worse yet those identities changed in their root definition, so that if you were some identity 20y ago, that now means something different.
For example, if you were a 2nd wave feminist, you're likely assumed to hate transgender people.
Worse yet those identities changed in their root definition, so that if you were some identity 20y ago, that now means something different.
For example, if you were a 2nd wave feminist, you're likely assumed to hate transgender people.
Or, to sum up in a pithy sound bite phrase: labels might describe people, but must never define us.
>The body of the article acknowledges that those "learning styles" have been debunked
I'd say some dubious quality research (like most educational / psychology research is) was done to favour learning styles.
Then some newer, still dubious quality, research was done to "debunk" them.
Meanwhile, we probably don't know more about what objectively works in learning than we did before both sets of research were reported.
It's more about churning papers and taking sides in different academic camps, than actual scientific work.
Like with "Thinking, Fast and Slow" I wouldn't bet on either the original research or the debunking, having "settled" the issue.
I'd say some dubious quality research (like most educational / psychology research is) was done to favour learning styles.
Then some newer, still dubious quality, research was done to "debunk" them.
Meanwhile, we probably don't know more about what objectively works in learning than we did before both sets of research were reported.
It's more about churning papers and taking sides in different academic camps, than actual scientific work.
Like with "Thinking, Fast and Slow" I wouldn't bet on either the original research or the debunking, having "settled" the issue.
It's extremely difficult to prove anything in education research, just like any kind of sociology or psychology research.
Humans aren't like bowling balls dropped from towers, they're very non-deterministic, and the number of background factors that every individual has makes it very difficult to make federal statements.
Source: current ed research master's student.
Humans aren't like bowling balls dropped from towers, they're very non-deterministic, and the number of background factors that every individual has makes it very difficult to make federal statements.
Source: current ed research master's student.
It’s not even about churning papers in Ed research.
The grand prize is any kind of gimmick that can be turned into staff development material and a lucrative publishing/consulting career.
The grand prize is any kind of gimmick that can be turned into staff development material and a lucrative publishing/consulting career.
See Angela Duckworth's "Grit"-based cottage industry ("A 2013 MacArthur Fellow, Angela has advised the World Bank, NBA and NFL teams, and Fortune 500 CEOs.") The grandmaster of the form is Yuval Noah Harari, who, among other things, has parlayed his pop histories into children's books and graphic novels.
It's also confusing to talk about learning styles without it's context. They always come from the detached top. Here in Sweden it's primarily used (along with most trends teachers have to stomach) to distract from budget cuts. The initiatives never seem to include smaller classes or more teachers, only mire work for an already overworked profession.
They actually haven't been debunked IMHO. They've done a handful of tests that tend to show that people remember pictures better than words. They have not tested, as far as I have seen, Active vs Reflective, Inductive vs Deductive (or Sequential vs Global), etc.
I don't think it's been studied in a long time because of the influence of the "Learning Styles is Bullshit" gang.
I don't think it's been studied in a long time because of the influence of the "Learning Styles is Bullshit" gang.
The term 'learning style' has two completely separate meanings depending on whether it's a tool at your disposal or an external requirement. People in the latter group talk about "debunking" a "myth" in the same way that programmers write "agile is bullshit" blogs.
It hasn't been seriously studied since the late 90s (imho) because the people working on it were all fairly satisfied with the new tool they'd created for certain struggling teachers in very specific circumstances. From that perspective, potential research questions might boil down to "Is empathizing with a different point of view useful?" or "Exactly how attracted am I to the idea of archetypes?"
It hasn't been seriously studied since the late 90s (imho) because the people working on it were all fairly satisfied with the new tool they'd created for certain struggling teachers in very specific circumstances. From that perspective, potential research questions might boil down to "Is empathizing with a different point of view useful?" or "Exactly how attracted am I to the idea of archetypes?"
I'm starting to think that debunkers of X are tedious than people who are pro-X. It's so easy to find a study that says X has some flaw and debunk away. There was an oft cited study about plastic bags with some weird methodology that everyone used to smugly proclaim that their single use plastic bags were actually better and people who used reusable bags had been debooonked.
Here's a quick response as I have to get to a sailboat race.
* Most research is limited; most test memory of pictures vs words (pictures win for most). Most educators of higher levels believe that there is more to learning than memory, but this is largely not addressed by the researchers.
* Most "learning styles" are established via questionnaire, not actually testing how people learn best
* Even the "Learning Styles is BS" crowd is starting to weasel out of the implication of their conclusion that everybody learns the same. They are saying things like "talent" and "context" etc. give differences in how people learn, not learning styles. A distinction without a difference IMHO- with the possible exception that you could argue that you are, for example, verbal for math and visual for history or something (because of context or whatever).
* I don't have a dog in the fight. I only want what's best for students, which means to learn how they learn. If they are all the same, so be it (but I would be surprised).
* More of my thoughts here: https://studyswami.com/are-learning-styles-bs/ and my conceptual take on how we should measure learning styles if we really want to research them (don't take the actual results too seriously).completely tangential comment: that opener ought to be a meme
Wanted to comment on this, too - replying instead trying to avoid being a spammer.
Meme or not, I'll try to remember this for any conversation where I want to strengthen my argument :)
> Here's a quick response as I have to get to a sailboat race:
> You have no idea what you are talking about and the implications of using spaces for indentation are much more severe than you think.
Meme or not, I'll try to remember this for any conversation where I want to strengthen my argument :)
> Here's a quick response as I have to get to a sailboat race:
> You have no idea what you are talking about and the implications of using spaces for indentation are much more severe than you think.
Even if it's a thing, the idea that a teacher should take on the role of psychologists and figure out a child's optimal learning style should be preposterous to anyone with common sense.
It might work in combination with a software suite, with e-readers getting cheaper and more capable, and easily lasting through a school day, it's an option.
It might work in combination with a software suite, with e-readers getting cheaper and more capable, and easily lasting through a school day, it's an option.
Ah yes, we can sort kids into humanities and sciences, by age, by ability, into gymnasiums and normal schools, but sorting visual learners from other ones is too hard.
We can only seperate kids into groups when it serves adninistrative or industrial beenfits, when its for the benefit of the child, forget it.
I mean how can you expect a ridiculously expensive system where children spend the majority of their waking hours to actually ask a child if it suits them?
We can only seperate kids into groups when it serves adninistrative or industrial beenfits, when its for the benefit of the child, forget it.
I mean how can you expect a ridiculously expensive system where children spend the majority of their waking hours to actually ask a child if it suits them?
I agree burdening the teachers with individualized instruction is too much. But students learning about themselves seems like a good thing.
My only point is that I believe the situation has not been studied well, and it should be.
My only point is that I believe the situation has not been studied well, and it should be.
Five reasons why you're wrong:
* why the sudden markdown/pre-wrap style change?
* why use ChatGPT when you can afford a sailboat race, better pay some social media person
* you do have a dog in some fight. Seems like you have stakes in some kind of e-learning platform
Also, needing five bullet points shows the weakness of your argument. Better do 5.
OK, sorry, that was spam. I see that you probably wrote that yourself and I don't have any stakes in this discussion.
* why the sudden markdown/pre-wrap style change?
* why use ChatGPT when you can afford a sailboat race, better pay some social media person
* you do have a dog in some fight. Seems like you have stakes in some kind of e-learning platform
Also, needing five bullet points shows the weakness of your argument. Better do 5.
OK, sorry, that was spam. I see that you probably wrote that yourself and I don't have any stakes in this discussion.
I think I agree with the synopsis.
I don't follow the broad research for the debate, but have a pretty good understanding of the way I learn now that I'm in my 30s.
I can't listen to lectures at all. Like I just fall asleep. I also have trouble staying awake in meetings where I have to sit still and listen to others talk without being able to engage much. College lectures were torture. It's really hard to grok certain engineering classes and listen when you're spending a ton of energy also taking notes and the professor is moving too fast. I have no idea why they don't just print them ahead of time and pass them out. Who cares if students then don't show up if they can learn the material better?
I've found out my best way to learn is to just read the textbook chapters on my own time (no lectures) and then do the homework answering questions or writing papers with the professor available to chat if we need anything (how my master's program works). That works best for me. Audio is just not a good medium for me. I prefer podcast transcripts instead of having to listen to the hosts talk which takes a lot longer. I'm sure others are different.
I don't follow the broad research for the debate, but have a pretty good understanding of the way I learn now that I'm in my 30s.
I can't listen to lectures at all. Like I just fall asleep. I also have trouble staying awake in meetings where I have to sit still and listen to others talk without being able to engage much. College lectures were torture. It's really hard to grok certain engineering classes and listen when you're spending a ton of energy also taking notes and the professor is moving too fast. I have no idea why they don't just print them ahead of time and pass them out. Who cares if students then don't show up if they can learn the material better?
I've found out my best way to learn is to just read the textbook chapters on my own time (no lectures) and then do the homework answering questions or writing papers with the professor available to chat if we need anything (how my master's program works). That works best for me. Audio is just not a good medium for me. I prefer podcast transcripts instead of having to listen to the hosts talk which takes a lot longer. I'm sure others are different.
As a student I was similar to you, I learned best by reading a textbook and working through problems. But I also knew other people who learned best by going to lectures. And still others who learned best by having a TA work through problems or questions with them and have a one-on-one conversation with them (as a TA I was often the other side of that). For some visual imagery was extremely helpful. For others (including myself) not as much.
And what works best can even depend on the subject material for a single individual.
In my experience, the way people learn best is far more variable than a fixed set of learning styles.
And the way our education system works is usually a shotgun approach where they same material is taught in multiple ways and hope that one of them works. Which ends up wasting a lot of the students time with the approaches that don't work for them. And of course there will be students where none of the methods quite work for them.
And what works best can even depend on the subject material for a single individual.
In my experience, the way people learn best is far more variable than a fixed set of learning styles.
And the way our education system works is usually a shotgun approach where they same material is taught in multiple ways and hope that one of them works. Which ends up wasting a lot of the students time with the approaches that don't work for them. And of course there will be students where none of the methods quite work for them.
Well run classes have the textbook chapters your suppsed to read for the upcoming lecture. So your ready and can interact and ask questions. Learning isn't supposed to happen there. Then it's reinforced with hw.
The lazy thing to do is sit down and have someone talk to you. So this doesn't happen in practice.
The lazy thing to do is sit down and have someone talk to you. So this doesn't happen in practice.
It's crazy that the prevalent teaching method is sitting for long periods while listening to someone else's, constant-pitch voice. That's literally the best way to fall asleep, as shown in sleep meditation videos and the like. I was a terrible student, could not keep my eyes open in any class, lost interest, never made it to colleague. Then a few years later I did self-paced distant learning and got my degree in no time while working.
I’m sure most instructors would, if they had a choice, cut lectures and just have discussion sections/labs. But this would require that everybody read the book and come to the discussion sections ready to engage.
Lectures seem more like a failure-mode that has somehow become the standard. Assume the students won’t read, and have a human take the book’s job. Humans are… not great books.
It is weird that video-lectures+in person discussion sections didn’t become the standard by, like, 2010 or so.
Lectures seem more like a failure-mode that has somehow become the standard. Assume the students won’t read, and have a human take the book’s job. Humans are… not great books.
It is weird that video-lectures+in person discussion sections didn’t become the standard by, like, 2010 or so.
The lecture style appears to come from a time before the printing press when access to information was poor, enabling students to be essentially human photocopiers to copy the material to bring back to the home for the rest of the family to learn from.
Seems we still do it because we have a love of tradition.
Seems we still do it because we have a love of tradition.
YMMV, which is kind of the entire point here. Personally I found lectures to be a great way to learn, given the right teacher. A big key for me was to stop taking notes so that I could actually focus on what was being said instead. Another was, for lack of a better word… humanity. Video lectures just don't capture me the same way at all.
I always had to take notes, still do, if I want to be able to focus on the speaker. Something about how I process speech.
I'm very skeptical about the "there are no learning styles" results.
I'm very skeptical about the "there are no learning styles" results.
The idea is that it is unlikely that individuals can be neatly categorized into one specific learning style among of set of learning styles. What allows one to learn best is highly contextual and ever changing.
This wouldn't work well in my engineering classes unfortunately. Sure you might follow along better, but then you'd have no example problems to study and would be screwed when it came time to study for the test.
Wasn't there a math prof that did exactly that? Can't find the link now, but after some getting used to the results were overwhelmingly positive.
TBH, just staying at home and watching YouTube videos (on the same topics) is likely better than sitting in the average lecture, even if students don't want to read at all...
TBH, just staying at home and watching YouTube videos (on the same topics) is likely better than sitting in the average lecture, even if students don't want to read at all...
>TBH, just staying at home and watching YouTube videos (on the same topics) is likely better than sitting in the average lecture, even if students don't want to read at all...
Good luck getting the students to watch the videos.
Good luck getting the students to watch the videos.
When I started college in 2009, most large classes were videotaped and posted online within a day or two. Still had to show up for discussion and small lectures but at least those usually involved more student engagement
Yeah, especially since COVID that seems to be popular. But, it doesn’t really lessen the workload on the instructor. IMO it would be better to just take the “best hits” video lectures from the last couple years, give those to the students, don’t do lectures at all, and then focus 100% on discussion sections (which really benefit more from the personal touch). But, for some social reason or something, this wouldn’t fulfill student expectations.
Some people make that monotone work. I have avidly listened to one smooth monotone speaker talk for 45 minutes, while falling asleep in minutes for a different speaker at the same time of day (different day) who seamingly was much more energetic.
I have no idea what the difference was, but i've observed it.
I have no idea what the difference was, but i've observed it.
Most professors I knew would much prefer people read, and the class be used for summary, discussion and problem solving. The problem is they could never get the students to read prior to the lecture.
I think lectures as a form of teaching were invented in the middle ages, before the printing press was available. The whole university might have owned only one copy of each book, so learning by reading it wasn't an option for most students. So the professor, who had read the book before, would lecture them on its contents.
Good lecturers are far better than books. Then engage with the class, ask questions, adapt the content to what the students want to know or have trouble with, etc
I've spent a bunch of time over the last couple of years working on learning and enablement programs. The main thing that I've learnt is that nobody likes the bulk of online learning efforts: dated videos with forced Q&A interspersed.
I've got a strong hunch that learners have an overall learning modality: some prefer video, some prefer audio, some prefer long form text, and so on, but--there's also a local preference based on their current context: you might have a stronger preference to video for commuting or perhaps you like to print out materials and read it.
Finding ways to allow learners to come along their own journey that meets them where they are right now is key to generating better outcomes.
I've got a strong hunch that learners have an overall learning modality: some prefer video, some prefer audio, some prefer long form text, and so on, but--there's also a local preference based on their current context: you might have a stronger preference to video for commuting or perhaps you like to print out materials and read it.
Finding ways to allow learners to come along their own journey that meets them where they are right now is key to generating better outcomes.
> I can't listen to lectures at all. Like I just fall asleep.
Falling asleep doesn't mean you didn't learn from the lecture. I fall asleep during lectures and still learn a lot from them, I get sleepy when I learn stuff so falling asleep during learning is natural.
So don't conflate "I focused" with "I learned". You don't learn by focusing, you learn by rewiring your brain, and you rewire your brain best when you sleep.
I think people who got praised for working hard rather than for learning seek out activities where they work hard rather than activities where they learn, and conflates that for learning styles when it is just their own mental bias. Or people who prefer one style since it is more comfortable etc, people are really bad at evaluating how well they learned something.
Falling asleep doesn't mean you didn't learn from the lecture. I fall asleep during lectures and still learn a lot from them, I get sleepy when I learn stuff so falling asleep during learning is natural.
So don't conflate "I focused" with "I learned". You don't learn by focusing, you learn by rewiring your brain, and you rewire your brain best when you sleep.
I think people who got praised for working hard rather than for learning seek out activities where they work hard rather than activities where they learn, and conflates that for learning styles when it is just their own mental bias. Or people who prefer one style since it is more comfortable etc, people are really bad at evaluating how well they learned something.
Idk. Hard to learn when the professor put you to sleep like a lullaby
As a teenager and young adult, I was an extremely good textual learner. I could gobble down book chapters and retain all of it. Then grad school happened. I had an extremely hard time reading scientific papers (where generally bad writers encode text in a crazy way for readers of that sub-field to be able to efficiently grok). Now in my 40s (and a professional scientist), I find it very hard to learn from any text. Videos and interactive conversations is my comfort zone. So I'd say Youtube is my biggest source of learning.
That said, I have wondered if my switch from being a great textual learner to someone unable to comprehend is due to lack of practice and my brain being lazy? I recently picked up a work of fiction from my kids' room and I was surprised at how hard it was for me to grok it (it was an old english book - Robinson Crusoe - so maybe it is the book and not me). I wish I was good at learning from all modalities again.
That said, I have wondered if my switch from being a great textual learner to someone unable to comprehend is due to lack of practice and my brain being lazy? I recently picked up a work of fiction from my kids' room and I was surprised at how hard it was for me to grok it (it was an old english book - Robinson Crusoe - so maybe it is the book and not me). I wish I was good at learning from all modalities again.
Reading is definitely a skill that atrophies without use. We're all reading more than ever - but short chunks, or dense but linear technical work (like scientific papers or business texts). Reading fiction or dense non fiction (philosophy, heavier sense textbooks) requires the kind of sustained relaxed attention that does seem intuitively to be diminished by both lack of practice, and social media use. I'm trying to build the habit again, as I find my own capacity to follow through with creative ideas and work are pretty directly linearly correlated with how much deep reading I'm doing.
I relate to this, a lot. I used to be quite an avid book reader. These days, I find it very hard to focus when reading books. The allure of hypertext is just so tempting.
This seems like a quote that would be pulled into an article 40 years from now about how quaint we all were in the past.
Not sure what you mean. I don’t know if we where morally superior in the past. But our media consumption sure was different. For better or worse.
Also, I am definitely not the same person today that I was at 25. Perhaps I had a greater thirst for knowledge when I was younger…? At least the thirst was different than it is today. I also didn’t have three kids, and because of that fact I had a lot more spare time than I have today (:
Also, I am definitely not the same person today that I was at 25. Perhaps I had a greater thirst for knowledge when I was younger…? At least the thirst was different than it is today. I also didn’t have three kids, and because of that fact I had a lot more spare time than I have today (:
Poetry and philosophy seem to be good at snapping my mind back out of web reader mode. The Bible too, but that’s sort of philosophy-poetry (or poetry-philosophy if you prefer).
Same. I used to read a lot when younger, then grad school happened.
I think it made me burnt out of reading.
I think practice and keeping up with reading is part of it. But I think a larger part of it is now that I associate reading with time management and stress. The brain is active.
I've had this conversation with others that went to grad school. It's like the brain can't read or learn something without constant pressure and stress to understand everything about it.
I think it made me burnt out of reading.
I think practice and keeping up with reading is part of it. But I think a larger part of it is now that I associate reading with time management and stress. The brain is active.
I've had this conversation with others that went to grad school. It's like the brain can't read or learn something without constant pressure and stress to understand everything about it.
Personally I think so. Reading requires a high level of concentration and immersion of the brain, as well as a low level of noise signaling. Modern video, on the other hand, does whatever it takes to destroy that ability. Think of their pacing, music, manner of speaking, and occasional insertion of canned clips or memes that habituate the brain to strong stimuli rather than low noise. I think watching these videos subconsciously destroys people's ability to read - you can hold it for shorter periods of time and understand less.
I think the period that a text was written does have a big impact on how digestible it is.
Recently I've been reading William Gibsons sprawl trilogy and switching to that from things released in the past couple of years is jarring - the turns of phrase and general perspective is different.
What I find interesting is that if you persevere through the first few chapters you quickly adapt to the writers voice. Had a similar experience reading the wheel of time recently despite it being published comparatively recently
Recently I've been reading William Gibsons sprawl trilogy and switching to that from things released in the past couple of years is jarring - the turns of phrase and general perspective is different.
What I find interesting is that if you persevere through the first few chapters you quickly adapt to the writers voice. Had a similar experience reading the wheel of time recently despite it being published comparatively recently
The issue is that "learning styles" as a phrase is overloaded. If you've read about the debunked theory of learning styles, and you hear someone use that phrase, you think they're talking about that, and they just haven't read the same article (headlines) you did. But, the phrase makes sense when used for something else: simply a description of what methodology an individual uses to study. The best solution would be for people to read critically and determine what the author intends by that phrase. I mean, that would be the solution in theory, but it's never going to happen. So, the more realistic solution is to just never use that phrase unless you're repeating that it's been debunked.
It took me _years_ to hone in my learning style- well after college. Learning to estimate (and to accept) the amount of effort it takes to truly learn a topic was freeing, in a way. Also, learning to identify when I could/should _stop_ learning became a useful skill for my day-to-day.
My challenge now is simply committing. It takes an incredible amount of time to be competitive in a particular skill that I instead tend to generalize my skill set rather than specialize.
My challenge now is simply committing. It takes an incredible amount of time to be competitive in a particular skill that I instead tend to generalize my skill set rather than specialize.
If videos are bad then lectures are bad too, checkmate know-it-all professors.
Since everyone pulls stuff out of their ass on this topic here's my take: write things down on paper that you want to remember. Memorization is a big part of learning and physically writing with a pen enhances memorization.
Since everyone pulls stuff out of their ass on this topic here's my take: write things down on paper that you want to remember. Memorization is a big part of learning and physically writing with a pen enhances memorization.
Then maybe lectures are bad too. I've never had a technical class that took attendance. You learn by doing, be it problem sets or projects. (Although at least with lectures you might be able to engage with the material more actively and have some back-and-forth with the professor and other students.
The biggest difference I’ve seen in how people learn is whether they learn things top down or bottom up. I generally prefer to just have the main idea or concept explained directly to me so that’s how I try to teach people things as well. Came as a shock to me when I realized lots of people want to go the other direction, seeing lots of examples and then later arriving at the general concept themselves.
There's also an idea that some people like to jump in and try things and others like to think about them first. The learning style antagonist camp would say (if I understand them correctly) that these differences are due to a difference in talent, experience with the subject, or IQ.
Here is a study from 2008 that seems to agree with the author’s opinion:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert-Bjork-2/publicat...
From the abstract: We conclude therefore, that at present, there is no adequate evidence base to justify incorporating learning-styles assessments into general educational practice. Thus, limited education resources would better be devoted to adopting other educational practices that have a strong evidence base, of which there are an increasing number. However, given the lack of methodologically sound studies of learning styles, it would be an error to conclude that all possible versions of learning styles have been tested and found wanting; many have simply not been tested at all.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert-Bjork-2/publicat...
From the abstract: We conclude therefore, that at present, there is no adequate evidence base to justify incorporating learning-styles assessments into general educational practice. Thus, limited education resources would better be devoted to adopting other educational practices that have a strong evidence base, of which there are an increasing number. However, given the lack of methodologically sound studies of learning styles, it would be an error to conclude that all possible versions of learning styles have been tested and found wanting; many have simply not been tested at all.
HN book recommendation:
Bad Education https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Education-Debunking-Myths/dp/0335...
The book is split into self-contained chapters, each of which debunk a (often, still) held myth about learning and education. 'Learning styles' is one of these, but others include setting and streaming classes by ability, the effects of 'good' schools. Each chapter is by a different author summarising academically (references) but accessibly a different 'debunk' topic.
UK-centric, but 'lessons' global. The main negative is the unescapable need for some of the chapter editors to air political grievances over the past, though these are mainly about sore wounds over party politics not pedagogy and easily identified. A take-away being shoddy science is used a lot to justify pre-held biases and 'common sense'.
Bad Education https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Education-Debunking-Myths/dp/0335...
The book is split into self-contained chapters, each of which debunk a (often, still) held myth about learning and education. 'Learning styles' is one of these, but others include setting and streaming classes by ability, the effects of 'good' schools. Each chapter is by a different author summarising academically (references) but accessibly a different 'debunk' topic.
UK-centric, but 'lessons' global. The main negative is the unescapable need for some of the chapter editors to air political grievances over the past, though these are mainly about sore wounds over party politics not pedagogy and easily identified. A take-away being shoddy science is used a lot to justify pre-held biases and 'common sense'.
This sounds like an interesting book. When I looked at the learning style research I found that most "debunking" reviews pointed to a couple of meta-studies by, for example, Pascher, that found no evidence of learning styles. As I looked deeper I saw that most studies were very limited, and mostly compared visual to verbal memory recall efficacy.
There were a few that tried reading comprehension, etc, but often at an age of student where memory is not that different from comprehension in testing for it.
The other thing that I found was that nobody was testing for learning styles. They determined "Learning Styles" by giving questionnaire about preferences. It seems to me you need to at least develop a possible test for learning styles before you see if there are differences in learning. I may prefer to look at pictures, but I may actually learn more from text.
But I do side with Bjork in that teachers focusing on learning styles at this point is a distraction from things we know that help education. I just think more research needs to be done before we dismiss it.
There were a few that tried reading comprehension, etc, but often at an age of student where memory is not that different from comprehension in testing for it.
The other thing that I found was that nobody was testing for learning styles. They determined "Learning Styles" by giving questionnaire about preferences. It seems to me you need to at least develop a possible test for learning styles before you see if there are differences in learning. I may prefer to look at pictures, but I may actually learn more from text.
But I do side with Bjork in that teachers focusing on learning styles at this point is a distraction from things we know that help education. I just think more research needs to be done before we dismiss it.
How/why are learning styles (as in visual, audio, kinesthetic) "debunked?"
I definitely learn better by seeing and reading than hearing things, I've never been able to pay attention in lectures or remember speech but I remember stuff written down. If "learning styles are debunked", what else is going on?
I'm sure people don't cleanly fit into one category (e.g. I may learn fine kinethetically as well, and I'm sure some people learn just as well visually as they do auditorally). Maybe everyone is actually a visual/kinethetic learner and teaching via speech just sucks.
But psychology is a soft science, and "learning styles are debunked" seems too broad considering many people indeed seem to learn better one way than the other.
I definitely learn better by seeing and reading than hearing things, I've never been able to pay attention in lectures or remember speech but I remember stuff written down. If "learning styles are debunked", what else is going on?
I'm sure people don't cleanly fit into one category (e.g. I may learn fine kinethetically as well, and I'm sure some people learn just as well visually as they do auditorally). Maybe everyone is actually a visual/kinethetic learner and teaching via speech just sucks.
But psychology is a soft science, and "learning styles are debunked" seems too broad considering many people indeed seem to learn better one way than the other.
While studying engineering I explicitly remember my classmates being weaker and stronger at different topics, and our study group would teach the thing they were strong at.
I had a really intuitive grasp of mechanics and dynamics and free body diagrams, others were much better than me at electrical engineering concepts, others again strong in fluid dynamics etc.
There’s definitely some variation in the things people are naturally able to grasp based on their past.
So initial exposure to a new topic for the same group of people, naturally some will take to it more easily than others.
I wouldn’t say it was a cut and dry as “learning styles” but some combination of the material and the way it is presented by the professor makes it digestible to varying degrees by students.
I had a really intuitive grasp of mechanics and dynamics and free body diagrams, others were much better than me at electrical engineering concepts, others again strong in fluid dynamics etc.
There’s definitely some variation in the things people are naturally able to grasp based on their past.
So initial exposure to a new topic for the same group of people, naturally some will take to it more easily than others.
I wouldn’t say it was a cut and dry as “learning styles” but some combination of the material and the way it is presented by the professor makes it digestible to varying degrees by students.
I don't believe the learning style antagonists would disagree with this. They argue that variations do exist, but they are due to prior knowledge background, talent and IQ (or g or whatever).
I certainly see some truth in their argument. If you and I were each to read a text of something that, say, you are familiar with and I am not, then you would probably score higher in the "verbal" learning category and I would have to draw pictures to understand the text. But a big part of the difference is that I would have to learn a lot more than you in order to parse the text- you have a better background. This is easily seen in reading research papers for example, with a novice vs an expert.
My argument is that we simply haven't studied it enough to know if there are fundamental differences in the way people learn.
I certainly see some truth in their argument. If you and I were each to read a text of something that, say, you are familiar with and I am not, then you would probably score higher in the "verbal" learning category and I would have to draw pictures to understand the text. But a big part of the difference is that I would have to learn a lot more than you in order to parse the text- you have a better background. This is easily seen in reading research papers for example, with a novice vs an expert.
My argument is that we simply haven't studied it enough to know if there are fundamental differences in the way people learn.
I am going to second all of the complaints about the use of “learning styles.” That has a very specific meaning in education. And there is a word for what the article is talking about: metacognition. Pretending that he has debunked a myth just feels clickbaity.
Classic encounter with an improper noun.[0]
I think the more substantive critique here is that when people hear “learning styles” they stop thinking and just reject the idea reflexively. To be fair, this is a reasonable defense to a scam that persuaded a lot of people historically and still has a fair bit of traction.
A practical response would be to work around the wordings that have baggage, not because you have to for Big Brotherish reason, but because you have empathy for the people you’re speaking to.
[0] https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1773806.html
I think the more substantive critique here is that when people hear “learning styles” they stop thinking and just reject the idea reflexively. To be fair, this is a reasonable defense to a scam that persuaded a lot of people historically and still has a fair bit of traction.
A practical response would be to work around the wordings that have baggage, not because you have to for Big Brotherish reason, but because you have empathy for the people you’re speaking to.
[0] https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1773806.html
Great point. They haven't really looked at it much outside of memory.
Sensory Input (Visual, Auditory, Tactile) -> Conceptual Understanding (Mental) -> Practice by Repetition (Mental + Physical).
"Learning Styles" thinking was based on the idea that step one was the most important. However, without conceptual understanding, learning devolves to rote learning. Without practice and repetition, long-term in-depth learning is impossible.
As far as approaches to learning, by far the best methods involve a fair amount of one-on-one attention. The quickest way to learn something is to have it directly explained to you by another person, with questions allowed. Similarly, the best way to test your own understanding of a subject is to explain it to someone else.
Of course, these are the most expensive methods of education, because they require a large investment in people - skilled teachers and other staff, and parking kids in front of Youtube videos is a lot less expensive (see also computer-automated grading of homework assignments and projects). Note that societies that don't place a high value on education are doomed to stagnation at best.
P.S. 'Learning styles' can be very important with dyslexia or dyscalculia, e.g. listening to an audiobook while reading along in a text can help the former, as does allowing calculators for the latter for the same reason. Students without these issues can adapt to different presentation styles without much difficulty, and if their school is any good they'll have access to all kinds of supplemental resources (libraries, tutors, access to online databases etc.).
P.P.S "Self-taught" is possible, but realistically it takes much more time and effort. Keep in mind though that an incompetent teacher is worse than no teacher at all.
"Learning Styles" thinking was based on the idea that step one was the most important. However, without conceptual understanding, learning devolves to rote learning. Without practice and repetition, long-term in-depth learning is impossible.
As far as approaches to learning, by far the best methods involve a fair amount of one-on-one attention. The quickest way to learn something is to have it directly explained to you by another person, with questions allowed. Similarly, the best way to test your own understanding of a subject is to explain it to someone else.
Of course, these are the most expensive methods of education, because they require a large investment in people - skilled teachers and other staff, and parking kids in front of Youtube videos is a lot less expensive (see also computer-automated grading of homework assignments and projects). Note that societies that don't place a high value on education are doomed to stagnation at best.
P.S. 'Learning styles' can be very important with dyslexia or dyscalculia, e.g. listening to an audiobook while reading along in a text can help the former, as does allowing calculators for the latter for the same reason. Students without these issues can adapt to different presentation styles without much difficulty, and if their school is any good they'll have access to all kinds of supplemental resources (libraries, tutors, access to online databases etc.).
P.P.S "Self-taught" is possible, but realistically it takes much more time and effort. Keep in mind though that an incompetent teacher is worse than no teacher at all.
> "Learning Styles" thinking was based on the idea that step one was the most important. However, without conceptual understanding, learning devolves to rote learning. Without practice and repetition, long-term in-depth learning is impossible.
This is something that hampered my progress in music and learning instruments until I understood it. Just learning an instrument without looking at theory behind it wasn't really motivating to me after a while. On the other hand, learning theory without having an instrument to use it on doesn't really click. However, putting these two together and in parallel results in a much more motivating and whole situation for me. Suddenly it's very interesting to understand what a song does at a deeper level, and a desire to be good enough with the guitar to do that, or similar things.
> As far as approaches to learning, by far the best methods involve a fair amount of one-on-one attention. The quickest way to learn something is to have it directly explained to you by another person, with questions allowed. Similarly, the best way to test your own understanding of a subject is to explain it to someone else.
I'm pretty happy how Spectre Academy does it. The main bulk is a bunch of video lectures and they have a discord server for course owners to ask questions to the lecturers as necessary. Though, as the article said, you need to treat these video lectures as... lectures. Get out that notebook and start writing down the important parts.
This is something that hampered my progress in music and learning instruments until I understood it. Just learning an instrument without looking at theory behind it wasn't really motivating to me after a while. On the other hand, learning theory without having an instrument to use it on doesn't really click. However, putting these two together and in parallel results in a much more motivating and whole situation for me. Suddenly it's very interesting to understand what a song does at a deeper level, and a desire to be good enough with the guitar to do that, or similar things.
> As far as approaches to learning, by far the best methods involve a fair amount of one-on-one attention. The quickest way to learn something is to have it directly explained to you by another person, with questions allowed. Similarly, the best way to test your own understanding of a subject is to explain it to someone else.
I'm pretty happy how Spectre Academy does it. The main bulk is a bunch of video lectures and they have a discord server for course owners to ask questions to the lecturers as necessary. Though, as the article said, you need to treat these video lectures as... lectures. Get out that notebook and start writing down the important parts.
Veritasium on this topic : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhgwIhB58PA
The most important thing in learning is to actively engage one's Imagination in various ways. Algebraic/Geometric mappings, Multi-level abstractions, Shifting between Abstraction and Concrete Reality, Relationship networks etc. are all needed.
The most important thing in learning is to actively engage one's Imagination in various ways. Algebraic/Geometric mappings, Multi-level abstractions, Shifting between Abstraction and Concrete Reality, Relationship networks etc. are all needed.
There is no evidence presented in this article. At all. It has no references other than links to articles that show "learning styles" are a myth.
This is a problem because there is real scientific evidence showing that people do not have specific learning styles.
The ideas that the author proposes center around "do you want to" and "do you like". Don't you get people telling you that they prefer "kinesthetic learning" because they "like it" better? How does this differ?
The conversation needs to focus around *what methods are effective for learning* and *what makes them effective*. The rest is fluff, getting ready to be debunked next.
I disagree with the comments about "metacognition"... I agree that is critical, but I don't see any sign that this article is addressing that. Metacognition means thinking about what worked and what did not work while you were/are trying to learn. The only sign of that in this article is the one sentence, "Understand what works for you," that refers to choosing one of the wants or likes from the list.
This is a problem because there is real scientific evidence showing that people do not have specific learning styles.
The ideas that the author proposes center around "do you want to" and "do you like". Don't you get people telling you that they prefer "kinesthetic learning" because they "like it" better? How does this differ?
The conversation needs to focus around *what methods are effective for learning* and *what makes them effective*. The rest is fluff, getting ready to be debunked next.
I disagree with the comments about "metacognition"... I agree that is critical, but I don't see any sign that this article is addressing that. Metacognition means thinking about what worked and what did not work while you were/are trying to learn. The only sign of that in this article is the one sentence, "Understand what works for you," that refers to choosing one of the wants or likes from the list.
Doesn't the original sentence cover your concern? "Learn how you learn."
Whenever people bang on about debunking this or that artifact of social science research (artifact of the academy to be more precise), I recall that personality can’t really be established empirically by modern psychological science. People are less willing to go around debunking personality, or say debunking free will. Some people do, especially in the “rationalist community” but generally fewer. Trusting the science is easier when it doesn’t conflict with reality, but there are a minority of people who have no trouble even when it does. In psychology especially, we should heed the adage, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” It’s difficult measuring the behavior of the human mind.
> Whenever people bang on about debunking this or that artifact of social science research (artifact of the academy to be more precise), I recall that personality can’t really be established empirically by modern psychological science.
Do you mean aside from this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits
Do you mean aside from this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits
Not exactly, because we don’t experience people’s big five, we experience a personality. You can argue that personality isn’t a real thing, and that differences can be reduced to five traits but have you ever wondered why five? Why not one? Personality as we experience it is something closer to mbti, but that also boils down to traits and isn’t very reliable. Personality doesn’t really change, but mbti does.
People who downplay personality, social psychologists, will point to numerous studies where behavior is determined by social forces or external circumstances alone. There’s not a lot of experimental evidence that people differ from one another, despite our entire legal/ethical system holding that as a fundamental truth. From an empirical perspective is looks like determinism is, if not in the lead, having a good run at the moment.
People who downplay personality, social psychologists, will point to numerous studies where behavior is determined by social forces or external circumstances alone. There’s not a lot of experimental evidence that people differ from one another, despite our entire legal/ethical system holding that as a fundamental truth. From an empirical perspective is looks like determinism is, if not in the lead, having a good run at the moment.
> Personality as we experience it is something closer to mbti
What, how is mbti a personality but big five isn't?
What, how is mbti a personality but big five isn't?
It’s hard to answer that concisely but one way to answer it concisely might be: mbti are often described as personality types, “The INFP tends to like x and often does y, they dislike z, …” the big five are just five arbitrary dimensions arrived at through factor analysis, they are descriptive more than predictive, they were not developed by Jung, a personality theorist. My point is that the things we can easily measure are not what we think of as personality. Your wife, daughter, dog, are not reducible to the big five. Whatever the extra stuff is, beyond those five dimensions, that’s specific to individuals and persistent, what we call a personality, is a very real thing that cannot be demonstrated empirically. That should humble us to the limits of our ability to understand the human mind, and complicated human mental processes like learning.
How is something like that verifiable?
If you do like all those pseudo psychologists, always find one category a person they meet fits in. There you go there are only 5 traits. Same thing for horoscopes, you can always fit one description from a sign to someone so you are always right. Except when there is this "how weird i thought you were a gemini what is your ascendant" "ohh that's why." a posteriori analysis can explain anything you want.
Mixing and matching methods is best, I feel. It's like ensembling models. The benefits/inefficiencies of your favorite method get counterbalanced by the benefitd/inefficiencies of your 3rd favorite method.
For ex, if you really like deep diving into theory, you can do that for 2 weeks, then maybe a week of practical coding. And vice versa. I feel in this way, you learn at different focal lengths (when you point the lens of your mind at the task at hand), and that helps build a more thorough learning rather than choosing your favorite focal length and staying there.
For ex, if you really like deep diving into theory, you can do that for 2 weeks, then maybe a week of practical coding. And vice versa. I feel in this way, you learn at different focal lengths (when you point the lens of your mind at the task at hand), and that helps build a more thorough learning rather than choosing your favorite focal length and staying there.
This seems to be more about working styles than learning styles. Since learning is a type of work, obviously it's still relevant, but it does mean the advice here can be more broadly applied as well.
[deleted]
There's exactly one comment about the learning style myth on the article this was written in response to. Not really sure the point of the article. It seems to boil down to: there are various mediums through which we learn in myriad ways to start on a learning path.
I also had replies on Mastodon, and a discussion in IRC, all of which were similar to the comment on the blog post: experts telling me that learning styles were a myth, and so therefore, "learn how you learn" was kind of bogus.
But yes, you got the point of the post: there are many fine ways to learn, and you have to choose the best one for you.
But yes, you got the point of the post: there are many fine ways to learn, and you have to choose the best one for you.
[deleted]
TLDR: “learning to learn” != learning styles.
To be more specific, I feel like there’s a strong correlation between a specific type of subject and a modality that fits- even if there’s no correlation between success and someone self selecting a given modality.
That feels like one of the main tasks of a good teacher. I feel that coding videos can be extremely useful for certain things. Like when introducing a new syntax it’s helpful to use the video format to point out structures and placement of syntax in real time (type definition goes here, you can also define a function like this, etc.)
To go back to the OP, a huge huge skill of learning is successful intuiting those modalities yourself. “I think a video would help me here”; “Here I can just read the docs to understand”
To be more specific, I feel like there’s a strong correlation between a specific type of subject and a modality that fits- even if there’s no correlation between success and someone self selecting a given modality.
That feels like one of the main tasks of a good teacher. I feel that coding videos can be extremely useful for certain things. Like when introducing a new syntax it’s helpful to use the video format to point out structures and placement of syntax in real time (type definition goes here, you can also define a function like this, etc.)
To go back to the OP, a huge huge skill of learning is successful intuiting those modalities yourself. “I think a video would help me here”; “Here I can just read the docs to understand”
Learning takes a lot of effort. There are no shortcuts. To put effort into learning something, you need discipline and/or motivation. Biggest problem with learning for me has always been finding the motivation. When I'm motivated I'm switching between all the mentioned "learning methods". Also, the best suitable method depends on the topic too. And finally... I've always hated lectures, and have had a bad tendency to fall asleep... expect when I'm motivated and the topic is interesting!
I found out recently that I have a tendance to "want to multitask" even though I know I don't hear a single word spoken to me if I'm attentively reading something.
I'll see an interesting educational video on YouTube but i'll wait until I'm eating to play it or else I'll have a feeling of wasting my time.
Or in class if I have my computer in front on me i'll go check stuff on my server or do some web searches even if I really like the topic of the class.
I don't know if I'm missing motivation or discipline or both. I really enjoy talking and reading about the aformentioned topics, but I can't devote 100% of my attention to lectures/videos, or maybe only in 15-30 mins incréments.
I'll see an interesting educational video on YouTube but i'll wait until I'm eating to play it or else I'll have a feeling of wasting my time.
Or in class if I have my computer in front on me i'll go check stuff on my server or do some web searches even if I really like the topic of the class.
I don't know if I'm missing motivation or discipline or both. I really enjoy talking and reading about the aformentioned topics, but I can't devote 100% of my attention to lectures/videos, or maybe only in 15-30 mins incréments.
Sounds very similar for me. It is pretty annoying sometimes, especially on remote meetings. I think it is some kind of ADHD tendency.
My comment came out quite black and white, the reality is of course very nuanced. I personally have hard time focusing. Even if I find the topic interesting I'm constantly switching attention, unless there is a strong immersion, like with development work.
My point was just that the "life hacks" of learning are quite useless if you are not interested or disciplined in the first place, and if you are... you unlikely need them. At least my personal experience is that when the topic is interesting and I have motivation, I usually "find a way" to learn more.
My comment came out quite black and white, the reality is of course very nuanced. I personally have hard time focusing. Even if I find the topic interesting I'm constantly switching attention, unless there is a strong immersion, like with development work.
My point was just that the "life hacks" of learning are quite useless if you are not interested or disciplined in the first place, and if you are... you unlikely need them. At least my personal experience is that when the topic is interesting and I have motivation, I usually "find a way" to learn more.
be careful that the habit to watch tv while eating doesn't turn into the habit of eating while watching tv.
i am running into these too. i think it is mainly discipline and difficulty to focus, wandering thoughts. i don't think it has anything to do with wanting to multitask. i don't want to multitask (except for the eat/tv thing) but i get distracted by thoughts and those are what make me do a web search or check something else.
i am running into these too. i think it is mainly discipline and difficulty to focus, wandering thoughts. i don't think it has anything to do with wanting to multitask. i don't want to multitask (except for the eat/tv thing) but i get distracted by thoughts and those are what make me do a web search or check something else.
[deleted]
The only way to acquire know-how is by doing. Failure and repetition are the best teachers. People are lazy and entitled and believe they should just be able to passively acquire knowledge without doing work and they blame incompatible “learning styles” for their personal failure. People also confuse “know-about” with “know-how”.
> The only way to acquire know-how is by doing
That is verifiably false, people learn by watching all the time. You can argue that doing is the best way to learn, but it definitely isn't the only way to learn.
That is verifiably false, people learn by watching all the time. You can argue that doing is the best way to learn, but it definitely isn't the only way to learn.
You don’t gain know-how though. You get acquainted with the concept and gain knowledge by watching or reading a thing. But until you do it and discover it’s intricacies you don’t have know-how.
My point being that many people stop at watching/reading/discussing and don’t actually go in and do the thing they want learn. They’ll never really learn it until they can do it.
My point being that many people stop at watching/reading/discussing and don’t actually go in and do the thing they want learn. They’ll never really learn it until they can do it.
> You don’t gain know-how though
What is know-how if not knowing how to do something? I've learned how to do stuff from watching and then at a later point doing the thing proving that I had know-how. I knew how to do it before doing it.
Edit: Example from when I was a kid: I played a game and struggled with a particular kind of monster, always took damage from it. Me doing it a lot of time didn't lead to knowing how to beat it. Then I watched my brother play it once, after that I never took damage from that monster again. Me watching lead to know-how instantly, doing didn't help, watching helped.
What is know-how if not knowing how to do something? I've learned how to do stuff from watching and then at a later point doing the thing proving that I had know-how. I knew how to do it before doing it.
Edit: Example from when I was a kid: I played a game and struggled with a particular kind of monster, always took damage from it. Me doing it a lot of time didn't lead to knowing how to beat it. Then I watched my brother play it once, after that I never took damage from that monster again. Me watching lead to know-how instantly, doing didn't help, watching helped.
I never said examples (video, text, discussion) weren’t valuable. They’re essential.
You had know-how of the game. You were shown the key and were able to execute because you’ve attempted it a bunch of times and failed.
Someone given all the details on the game and the fight would likely fail to execute if they lacked know-how.
You had know-how of the game. You were shown the key and were able to execute because you’ve attempted it a bunch of times and failed.
Someone given all the details on the game and the fight would likely fail to execute if they lacked know-how.
You should really read the article before going off on a rant that doesn't connect with the content.
The title: myth of myth.
Article: myth -> strawman (learning styles are debunked replaced with (in my words) learning strategies are debunked) -> strawman “debunked”
Article: myth -> strawman (learning styles are debunked replaced with (in my words) learning strategies are debunked) -> strawman “debunked”
There certainly are styles.
Tell my wife how to do something, she's going to do poorly. Have her watch it, she'll get it much, much better.
Tell my wife how to do something, she's going to do poorly. Have her watch it, she'll get it much, much better.
"Learning styles" usually refers to one of a handful of specific ways of dividing up people. E.g., as preferring visual, aural, reading/writing, or kinesthetic learning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_styles#Neil_Fleming's...
The body of the article acknowledges that those "learning styles" have been debunked:
> Briefly: the theory was that some people were inherently visual learners, while others were textual learners, among other kinds. This has been proven untrue.
The author is defending this idea instead:
> I’m talking about learners finding paths that work for them.
Fair enough, but recycling "learning styles" in the title is knowingly and needlessly confusing.