The following is a post that I wrote back in May 2013. The original version can be found here. For convenience, I’ve pasted the May 2013 post below (just click the button) and after it I have included my edits. The edits focus mostly on how I am using the phrase “learning style”. When I first started writing, I didn’t know that certain phrases like “learning style” connoted a specific type of learning. Without further ado.
[Edit: this article was written on May 10, 2013, here is a December 9th, 2014 update on the notion of “learning style”]
December 9, 2014 Update
There is good research out there challenging the idea of a “learning style” and trying to teach to it. Here are two of a myriad of write-ups and research citations:
- “The Myth of Learning Styles Debunked”
- “Learning Styles Debunked: There Is No Evidence Supporting Auditory And Visual Learning, Psychologists Say”
The purpose of this update is to make a distinction between the learning styles that have been debunked and the learning styles that I am talking about (which could also be debunked, I suppose). The learning styles that are the typical focus of “debunking” research are about learning kinesthetically, auditorily, visually, etc. The learning styles that I was referring to, was as the May 2013 version focused on — namely, the order in which material is presented.
We tend to teach material linearly — in the order that the course text / curriculum has it laid out. But I am not convinced that that order is best for all students. I am fairly certain that some students really want theory first, followed by application, followed by a revisit to theory. Yet for some other students, if the theory comes first, it is a waste of time since they just want to do first in order to be receptive to theory. Similarly, for the students who want theory first, they tend to be generally unreceptive to simple “contrived”, “motivational” examples right out of the gate. This is the distinction that I want to make when I have used the phrase “learning style”.
I know with fairly high certainty, that I just want to tinker first, without any exposure to theory or anyone else’s application. Just give me the object, physical or abstract and let me mess around and ask questions. At some point, I become receptive to learning theory more formally and to seeing applications. This has been how I’ve learned to program, play piano, draw, learn mathematics, etc. Any topic that has been introduced to me in a formal setting has been a waste of time since I’ve never first had a chance to form my own thoughts and experiences on it. The same goes for being introduced a topic with pre-made examples for me to work on. Curiously, a demonstration of the object (physical or abstract) in action is ok, but I tend to only want minimal demonstrations.
Thus, to me, the instructor’s dilemma is in trying to establish this understanding of their students. Theory first, then application? Application first, then theory? Trial by fire first and wait until they cry out for help? Open-ended problem with a simple directive: “Figure out a solution”? Open-ended problem with a simple, but constrained directive: “Figure out a solution using only these tools”? And so forth.
This is why I also believe that exams at certain pre-set milestones “We finish Chapter 93, so we’ll have an exam on it” are worthless and generally harmful. That type of examination favors a certain “learning style”, namely the linear kind, and marginalizes those students who like to have a broad scope, for example. As a consequence I think that we also then have a weird bias / understanding of “a good student” or “a smart student”. I think some students just end up disengaged from the subject topic because they not only can’t see the light at the end of the tunnel, but that they don’t even know why they’re walking through the tunnel. Other students just trust that there will be light and that they are walking through for some reason that will become clear later on.
I’ve taught long enough and have seen enough students to know that there are a non-negligible number of folks who put things together at the end because they finally got to see the picture that they were longing for from lecture one. This is why I try to talk about past, present, and future whenever I teach a topic. I try to reach as many students as possible and I often find myself saying things like, “For those of you for whom this makes no sense, give me a minute, I’ll put it into a more concrete context.” It’s still an art I’m perfecting.