The other day, Jessica asked:
“Do you agree that there are different ways of learning?”
My answer:
No. I believe the mechanism of learning is pretty well established by biology and psychology.
I want to follow up on that because I think we’ve got a fundamental disconnect on the meaning of the term “learning.” Learning is the process of assimilating knowledge domains for later use. The actual process is not well defined as yet. Brain research, cognitive research, and all the other research can’t really say what happens so that learning occurs. I subscribe to a philosophy that learning is a lot like seeing. There’s a process where light enters the eye, activates some receptors, transmits some messages into the brain, and the brain interprets the messages. The process of “seeing” is the same for everybody, but some of the more interesting questions revolve around how two people can use the identical process on identical scenes and interpret the outcomes differently.
Learning isn’t quite so straightforward, but I believe that the underlying mechanisms for learning must be as consistent as the mechanisms for seeing are. The questions we address as educators are not - strictly speaking - how we learn, but rather what can we do as teachers to stimulate the process in our students that results in learning. I might give you a book to read, or a movie to watch. I might give you a recorded interview to listen to, or show you a chart. There are lots of different kinds of sensory channels I can use to try to stimulate the learning process, but I’m ultimately working toward having my communications reach some level of process wherein the learner actually learns something. The next set of questions have to do with trying to figure out what the student may have learned and with trying to reconcile what the teacher intended to teach against what the student learned. It’s why assessment is so problematic.
Using the seeing analogy, I can give you something to look at, but what you see is dependent on a lot of things over which I have little or no control.
Going back to the initial question, however, I think that what Jessica is pointing out is that different people use different communications channels to activate their learning. This is not a trivial semantic issue. What the “learning styles” supporters contend is that an individual uses the same channel for every lesson and that any message not on that channel has a greater chance of being lost or discarded. I maintain that learners rely on a variety of channels and the use of restatement, repetition, and multiple channels is critical to triggering the learning process. Further, the efficacy of any given channel depends on the learner, the content, and the context depending on the quality of the message being transmitted.
This is not to say that any individual can subscribe to any theoretical foundation they like. Please, believe in “Learning Styles” if that helps you organize your thinking, but also be aware that what you’re doing is not supported by any credible evidence and - as such - could be (and probably should be) challenged under the Federal Guidelines for Research Based Practice under NCLB.
October 18th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
I have never really thought about learning in that way. I have heard about learning styles for as long as I can remember. I can even remember claiming to be a visual learner before I knew what it meant. But, when you think about it, the process really is the same. I think that the big difference in the way we process it is based on what we already know about the subject
October 18th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
The idea of learning styles is teacher speak for the magic bullet in education. If we give it to them in the right way, they will learn. When we think of learning as assimluating new information into existing schema….the way we deliver the new info is irrelavent. the key issue is whether or not the key info is conneced…..
October 18th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Right on the the money, Monica
October 19th, 2008 at 12:59 am
The knowledge that I have about games is limited. All the prescribed “learning theories” fail me. I am reading all that I can and trying to apply it and I continue to fail at this particular game. Back to Monica’s point, I have no prior knowledge of games. Rarely playing games and having nothing to go on to perform at the desired level, I am struggling is a weak term to use to describe what is happening. Prior knowledge is vital to learning.
October 19th, 2008 at 1:57 am
I have always thought of learning styles, when the mention of ways to learn. I never thought of them as seperate entities. However, I do agree that a certain process has to occur for one to learn. How the process is trigored (styles) is really irrelevant as long as the learning process has been started.
October 19th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
I think that the way a person learns something is not just dependent on biology, but rather WHAT they are learning also plays a vital role. Even when I look at the way I learn it varies. When studying history I gain more by reading, science I learn better by experimenting, and music comes naturally to me (I play by ear rather than reading notes). To say that someone learns a particular way is completely narrow minded and I am glad that you pointed this out.