"they highlight an important and new criticism of the learning styles approach: They state that “learning styles theories are a blend of borrowed constructs or measures from other, better-developed theories”. They further claim that within the learning styles framework, these borrowed constructs are misused and incorrectly interpreted leading to detrimental and useless recommendations. In this review, an attempt is made to connect existing learning styles concepts back to actual evidence-based concepts of human cognition and tie them to helpful recommendations for teachers. It acknowledges that there are individual differences between learners, but not as conceptualized by the learning styles approach...
Combining verbal and visual representations will allow the to-be-learned material to stick better. The learning styles approach rigidly assigns a dominant learning style to a person and recommends that this guides instruction and studying. However, doing so severely limits the learner and hinders them to use their cognitive abilities to the fullest...
the concrete-abstract dichotomy is less a trait within a learner, but rather describes a state of a learner on her way to obtain more and more expertise on a topic. An and Carr rightly notice that “this transition will not occur if the teacher matches the instruction to the learning style and makes no effort to move the students to a more abstract representation” (p. 4)."
I feel like "learning types" is one of those cultural beliefs that people from other societies probably find absurd
FB: "An and Carr argue that a learning preference can indicate that a student lacks a specific skill and that “it makes no sense to focus exclusively on modalities that are strong and ignore less well-developed skills when selecting activities” (p. 3)."
No comments:
Post a Comment