Annette Taylor, Ph. D. wrote:
I thought that in a previous discussion about a year ago on this list
the final
general conclusion was that the evidence for learning styles is very
weak.
that's not to say that we can't have a variety of activities, each of
which
engages learning in different ways; but this idea that some students are
"visual learners" some are "hands on learners" etc. is not
substantiated by
methodologically clean studies.
I strongly agree with Annette about learning styles as they have been
developed and discussed. It seems to me however, that there is
evidence for one "ability" or "learning style" that I haven't heard much
about since graduate school (many, many years ago). That is the
relationship between scores on tests like Block Design or the Minnesota
Form Board and grades or performance in Engineering and Physics. I
haven't looked at any recent data on this and can't find my old
references. Does anyone have data on this relationship or references?
It seems to me that some correlations were as high as .70.
This has relevance because I have been interested in helping
students do better in the natural sciences and one of the skills needed
seems to be related to reading and interpreting graphs, tables, and
visual or three dimensional models. Most of my colleagues in natural
sciences tell me things like they read the titles of articles and if it
seems interesting they immediately turn to the graphs and/or tables. If
these also look interesting they then read the article. As an
experimental psychologist I realized this is exactly what I do.
I have also noticed when ever I present data or a graph to my
colleagues in the Humanities I immediately lose most of my audience.
Many of the brightest of these colleagues report that they are unable to
make sense out of graphically presented information. Since realizing
this I always try to present theories and data in both graphics and
verbal form to my students. About two thirds of my Psychology students
report to me that the graphic displays help them and the other one-third
say these just confuse them.
I'm wondering if there is something to this particular "ability" or
"learning style." I do think there is some evidence that students can
be taught to better interpret graphically presented data but few of my
natural science colleagues report putting any effort into this
enterprise. They tend to do this easily and assume that anyone who
can't must not be very bright. I wonder how much of this is "ability"
and how much of it is "learning style" and how much is a learn able
skill. Do any of you have deeper insight into this problem or some
familiarity with the relevant research on the topic? I have come to
believe that transforming information or ideas into different forms is
one of the most important but hardest things to teach. Part of the
problem is that is comes so easy to many of us that we don't notice how
we do it while those who have trouble with it can't figure out how to
solve the problem.
bob Grossman
Kalamazoo College
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
To make changes to your subscription go to:
http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
