Are Learning Styles Important in Teaching Methods

Poldrack, R. (2010, March 18). Are "Learning Styles" Important In Teaching Methods. Huffington Post. Retrieved September 27, 2015 from

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russell-poldrack/are-learning-styles-impor_b_398326.html

This particular article’s main argument suggests that even though there doesn’t seem to be any direct correlation between learning and the learning styles theory. It asks the question if the money and time spent devoted to this theory is worth it or not. Individuals often and easily diagnose themselves with a specific learning style that they believe they learn best from. It also makes the argument that on the flip side an individual is very inaccurate in determining how they best learn. There are several testing companies and trainings for teachers that focus on learning styles. However, the articles states that “the idea of ‘learning styles’ may just be another example of our inability to accurately observe how our own minds work.”

Evidence for the argument comes from a study that was published in 2006 helps make the article seem more reliable. During this study two scientists taught two different groups some scientific information on the sun and sea otters. They presented the material in two different ways. One way was the group read the information four times. The other group only read it once and then tested their memory three times about the reading. They then proceeded to fill out a questionnaire asking them how well they thought they learned the material. The next step in the study was to take memory tests a few minutes after the reading and one week later. The results “when questioned about how well they had learned the material, the people who had read the paragraph four times felt much better about their learning of the material. In addition, they performed better on the memory test right after studying. However, things were very different a week later. At that point, the people who had studied the paragraph once and then been tested three times handily outperformed the overconfident paragraph-readers on the memory test for the material”. This does prove the author's point of how one cannot accurately predict the way their minds work, but “often confuse fluency (or ease) for ability”. The author has some convincing ideas. It seems as though his conclusion is more along the idea of learning strategies rather than learning styles. It may be more of a way that one prefers to learn then truly needs to learn better.

According to the methods of Willingham, this study might not be very reliable. The credentials of the scientists are not known and there are no specific quantities in the study. It is quite possible the results could be proven wrong if another group of individuals were tested. There is no measurable amount to convince the reader of the truth. If the study was flipped and the two groups switched how would the performance of the groups differ. If the way the groups received information was flipped how would the outcome be different. It might be helpful to look for other studies performed similarly to this one to see if the information and outcomes align. Also, it may be more beneficial to investigate more into the study and the individuals asked, the specific reading they received, and of course the scientists credentials.