In a letter to the editors of Online Athens (GA, US), Eric Schmidt challenged an earlier letter that suggested that testing of students’ learning discriminates against students who have different learning styles from those required by the tests. Mr. Schmidt argued against Alyssa Sosinski idea that students who have a given style, particularly those who might be considered kinesthetic learners, are inappropriately assessed by usual paper-and-pencil tests.
Ms. Sosinski contended tha “Study after study shows this specific subculture is more likely to comprise kinesthetic learners, who learn best when carrying out physical activities, and is also likely to comprise more creative learners. Since the standardized tests are not written for kinesthetic learners, this may be why those children score so low - not because they don’t know the material.” In his rebuttal of this idea, Mr. Schmidt cites the work Dan Willingham that regular readers of LD Blog will recognize.
It’s a popular but unproven notion to think the dominant “learning style” of a student is important in teaching them best. As Daniel Willingham, professor of cognitive psychology at the University of Virginia, has written, “Because the vast majority of educational content is stored in terms of meaning and does not rely on visual, auditory, or kinesthetic memory, it is not surprising that researchers have found very little support for the idea that offering instruction in a child’s best modality (learning style) will have a positive effect on his learning.” Instead, cognitive psychologists emphasize the importance of teaching in the content’s best modality.
Links to Ms. Sosinski’s letter and to Mr. Schmidt’s letter. Link to Mr. Willingham’s article entitled “Do Visual, Auditory, and Kinesthetic Learners Need Visual, Auditory, and Kinesthetic Instruction?”
Mr. Willingham and I have a publication on a slightly related topic, the ways that neuropscyhology can affect education, pending in the new journal entitled Mind, Brain, and Education.
Latest Comments
RSS