Even before I spoke and wrote about ‘MI,’ the term ‘learning styles’ was being bandied about in educational circles. The idea, reasonable enough on the surface, is that all children (indeed, all of us) have distinctive minds and personalities. Accordingly, it makes sense to find out about learners and to teach and nurture them in ways that are appropriate, that they value, and—above all—that are effective. Two problems. First, the notion of ‘learning styles’ is itself not coherent. Those who use this term do not define the criteria for a style, nor where styles come from, how they are recognized/assessed/exploited. Say that Johnny is said to have a learning style that is ‘impulsive.’ Does that mean that Johnny is ‘impulsive’ about everything? How do we know this? What does this imply about teaching—should we teach ‘impulsively,’ or should we compensate by ‘teaching reflectively’? What of a learning style that is ‘right-brained’ or visual or tactile? Same issues apply.
Howard Gardner: ‘Multiple intelligences’ are not ‘learning styles’
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/10/16/howard-gardner-multiple-intelligences-are-not-learning-styles/
Not a new article but a good reminder.
(via weareteachers)
