Learning Differences that Matter

Cedar Riener and Daniel Willingham expand on the argument (previously discussed here and here) that learning styles do not exist. They do not, however, deny that different people learn differently and this needs to be taken into account in teaching.

Real differences that affect learning:

  • Different talents: “[W]hether we call it talent, ability, or intelligence, people vary in their capacity to learn different areas of content.” ( Riener and Willingham, 2012). Some of this is probably genetic, while some of it is probably due of nuture., which leads to:
  • Different interests: Students with an interest in a subject are more motivated to learn and will learn it faster.
  • Different background knowledge: Student retain more then they are able to fit new knowledge into an existing mental scaffolding.
  • Learning disabilities: There are neurological differences that result in things like dyslexia that have a strong influence on how some students learn.

Riener and Willingham argue that while students do have preferences for ways they learn (visual vs. auditory vs. kinesthetic etc.) these have no real effect students’ learning. Information should be presented in ways that are appropriate to the content:

If I were to tell you “I want to teach you something. Would you rather learn it by seeing a slideshow, reading it as text, hearing it as a podcast, or enacting it in a series of movements,” do you think you could answer without first asking what you were to learn—a dance, a piece of music, or an equation? While it may seem like a silly example, the claim of the learning styles approach is that one could make such a choice and improve one’s learning through that choice, independent of content.

We all agree that some kids show more interest in math, some start their education more interested in poetry, and others are more interested in dodgeball. The proof that the learning-styles theorist must find is that for some sort of content—whether it be math, poetry, or dodgeball—changing the mode of presentation to match the learning styles helps people learn. That evidence has simply not been found.

Riener and Willingham, 2012: The Myth of Learning Styles in Change, The Magazine of Higher Learning.

Finally, they assert that, “it is a waste of time to assess learning styles rather than, for instance, background knowledge.”

Still, even with learning styles taken out of the equation, it seems to me that presenting information in multiple modes remains beneficial. It forces the teacher to approach the subject matter from different perspectives, and presents students with multiple opportunities to encounter information in a way that would fit into their existing knowledge scaffolding. However, it is useful to recognize that we don’t have to force ourselves too fit content into incongruent learning styles (although that in itself might be a useful mental exercise for the teacher, or a good way for students to demonstrate that they can apply their knowledge into other domains).

The Dish

“Cheat Sheets”

A selection of "cheat sheets".

I let my students bring in one page of handwritten notes, a “cheat sheet” if you will, into their last Physics exam. I’d expected to see some very tiny writing, but some of the notes needed scientific-grade magnification equipment to be read. Seen from a distance, the dense writing did have a certain aesthetic appeal.

Of course the primary reason for letting students bring in the cheat sheets into the exam was to get them to practice taking notes. At one extreme, the students who already take good notes benefit from having to condense them. At the other extreme, the students who don’t take notes at all get a strong incentive to practice. The very act of preparing cheat sheets is a good way to study for exams.

And it worked. As they hand in their papers I usually ask them how the test went, and, this time, I also asked a few student if they found their page of notes useful. One student in particular responded, Well I didn’t need to use it after making it.

Cheat sheets laid out according to note-taking style. Two extremes of note taking styles are highlighted. Equations and diagrams to the left, and text-only to the right.

It was also very interesting to see the different styles of note taking: the strategic use of color; densely packed text; equations; diagrams; columnar organization. What all this means, I’m not sure. I’m particularly interested in how their note taking style relates to students’ preferred learning style.

Indeed, it would be interesting to see if the note taking style co-relates in any way with students’ performance on the test. One could hypothesize that, since we know that students learn better when they encounter material from multiple perspectives, then students whose notes have the greatest mix of styles — diagrams, equations, text etc. — should have learned more (and perhaps perform better on the test).

It’s a pretty simple and crude hypothesis, since there are likely many other factors that affect test performance, but it would still be interesting to look at.

Letting Students Personalize their Grading Scheme

How do you know if a student has mastered a subject? How do you get students to better understand how they learn and take more control of their education? I’ve been thinking that giving them more control of their grading might be the answer.

Test grades give some information, but experiments can be just as, if not more, informative. Much depends on the learning style of the student and how they express themselves. Verbally oriented might be good at processing written information and putting what they learned on paper. Kinesthetic-oriented students are likely to do better with practical demonstrations and labs that require movement and coordination.

Since there’s some merit to both exams and laboratory experiments – tests are good for checking the understanding of basic facts, while good labs require application of concepts – they have to be somehow added together to determine if and how well as student has mastered the topic.

Usually, the different types of assessment are combined with different weights. 60% of the total grade for a class might come from exam scores, and 40% from labs. But, given the different talents of different students, might it not make more sense to adjust the weights based on the specific student.

In fact, it would probably be even better to have the students decide for themselves on their own personal grading scheme. It could be part of a classroom contract.

Students would have a strong incentive to come up with their own most beneficial grading system, and, if you gave them a little time to understand the exam and lab requirements (say half a semester) before coming up with the weights, they’d have a lot of incentive to really try to understand how they learn best, and how to demonstrate that knowledge.

Once they’d made a decision on grading weights, they could then focus more energy on the parts of the class they find interesting, which, if we’re lucky, make them more motivated to learn the subject. Then they could set out to acquire the same information and concepts from what is to them a more interesting perspective, without having to worry so much about the stress of struggling through those activities they find difficult and tedious.

A student who is good at experiments might learn the facts in the textbook better if they were looking up information for an experiment – a big picture to little picture perspective – while a student who’s read and understands the text might find the experiments a lot easier to deal with (and so perform better) if they’re less worried about getting the perfect grade.

There would probably have to set some limits as to how much they could play with the weights, say plus or minus 15%, but individualized, self-assigned weights could be a very powerful way of tailoring education, especially in a context where grades are necessary.

Multiple Intelligences

The cycle of work. Within each subject area there are different types of assignments designed to provoke learning in many different styles.

The lessons, the individual works, the different group works, the reading; they’re all set up in this elaborate combination so that different students with different learning styles can get the information they need in the way that’s most meaningful to them. But the students also get to experience a wide range of learning styles so that they can become acclimatized to the different styles while actually figuring out which ones work best for them.

The logic behind this approach comes from Howard Gardner’s ideas on multiple intelligences. He argues that we have aptitudes for different ways of learning, and learning is easier and faster if students take advantage of their preferred learning styles. Whether we acquire these preferences through nature or nurture is an intriguing question, but by middle school I’ve found that it does not take long to recognize that some students have rather strong preferences.

[T]here exists a multitude of intelligences, quite independent of each other; that each intelligence has its own strengths and constraints; that the mind is far from unencumbered at birth; and that it is unexpectedly difficult to teach things that go against early ‘naive’ theories of that challenge the natural lines of force within an intelligence and its matching domains. – Gardner (1993) p. xix.

The learning intelligences have been defined in a number of different ways (see Smith, 2008 and BGfL for examples). We parse them like this:

  • Linguistic intelligence – learning from the written word or hearing words (auditory).
  • Logical/Math – using numbers and logical reasoning.
  • Bodily-kinesthetic – learning from doing.
  • Visual/Spatial – emphasizes images and relationships in space.
  • Interpersonal – learning from/with others.
  • Intrapersonal – introspective learning.
  • Musical – rhythm is important
  • Naturalistic – comprehending of the environment.

I prefer students to discover their preferred intelligences via the variations convolved into the curriculum, however, the BGfL has an online, multiple intelligences test that I’ve used in the past. However, as with standardized tests, you don’t want to stereotype students or have them stereotype themselves. All the intelligences interact. Different challenges force us to take different approaches, using different combinations of our intelligences to best effect. As always, a growth mindset is best. With their mental plasticity, adolescence is the best time to explore different learning approaches.