7 4

LINK Students did not benefit from studying according to their supposed learning style

It's amazing how many educators, who are supposed to be teaching our children to pay attention to the evidence, themselves don't pay attention to the evidence

TheMiddleWay 8 Apr 14

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Amazing somewhat, but honestly not surprising to me.


Language is one intersting indicator of a persons mental agililty. If you have ever tried to learn a new language excluding one that you were raised in then you can chime in. Math and Science are true indicators of a persons mental acumen but that all are not given the same expertise. I had a lot of bad teachers in my educational experience as you can also relate to and as you can see with what they pay teachers and the upheavals that are finally making the forefront.

The idea that Maths and Science are true indicators of mental acumen is what leads people to think (and insist) that dyscalculics like myself are stupid. ?


Teaching Children or anyone for that matter to study on Test Taking is a total waste of education, money, and is a totally false indicator of a persons ability to succeed. Been proven for years that these exams are biased, have trick misleading question that are only privy to select individuals and not the whole educational spectrum. Money, Past Affilitations and Alumni make up the main stage for admissions.

It could be said that test taking is a way of measuring how well a student has learned the material. If you have an issue with the validity of a test, the test should be changed.

Like dahermit said, not all tests are about the ability to succeed but rather measure how much of the material you have learned you have retained and can use.


Thank you for sharing the above article which I found interesting. Clearly, the results speak for themselves with regard to learning styles. I wonder to what extent the standards have been lowered by pandering to those who are "visual learners" and those who are "auditory learners" and those who are "kinesthetic learners"?

"I wonder to what extent the standards have been lowered by pandering to those who are "visual learners" and those who are "auditory learners" and those who are "kinesthetic learners"?"

Therein lay one danger.
Another danger is spending resources (already in limited supply) trying to get every learning style presented in school.
Not to mention the time waster trying to figure out what your students learning style is or the consequences of a student saying they learn better by X and only doing X and thus getting bad grades.


They taught me this in school when I was studying to be a teacher. I just got my teaching degree in 2015. Now that I'm working in a school, I'm glad to notice that no one really mentions learning styles. I've been here three years, and I haven't heard it mentioned once.

I remember being skeptical about "learning styles" and "multiple intelligences" when the professors brought it up. I immediately looked for the hard science about it, and it was a couple of years later that the ideas were pretty well debunked. But that news didn't reach many folk, I'm sure. I still hear adults say that they're "tactile learners" or some such BS.

I will say, I'm a believer in multiple intelligence. As a scientist and musician I can tell you that they both require a different set of skills and a different mentality and that being smart in one doesn't make you smart in the other.

@TheMiddleWay I agree. I think I probably believe in multiple intelligences the way that you do. When it was presented to me with learning styles, I was skeptical. I did research on both concepts, and only came to really reject learning styles. And although I buy into the idea of multiple intelligences, I disagreed with some of the conclusions my professor came to.


Would be a better statement if put, Students do not learn from memorizing. When something is memorized within a short period of time after using the memorized material it is forgotten.

@PraiseXenu No fair! Mnemonic devices are cheating!! 😉 Which did you get? I was given "Dumb [domain], Kindly Professors Cannot Often Fail Good Students."

@PraiseXenu You chose to learn it try memorizing 14 numbers for a week in a year from now try to recall them. Committing information to your long-term memory is way different than memorizing.

@PraiseXenu I hear you. People used to commit extraordinary feats of memory regularly: Roman Senators with their speeches, monks with their scriptures, bards with their epic poems, ancient peoples with their oral histories. Fascinating stuff; a shame it's been wasted. I have been trying to train my memory to work that way. I find that closing my eyes helps me create mental images which then help a bit with the recall. Practiced on sermons, sutras, etc.

Yes...that is why I have forgotten that six times six is thirty-six. And, "Under the spreading chestnut tree, a village smithy stands." Yup, memorization is of no use at all...we would be better just writing it on our sleeves.


I'm sorry. How can you possibly really learn something without studying it?

Not what the article is about... it's not about not studying, it's about studying as per the mythological "learning styles".

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:57745
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.