I liked this paper partially because the survey size of 216 was substantially larger than most in our field (larger, for example, than the surveys of 24 and 38 in the same issue of JOLT) and partially because the authors were responsible enough to say "the sample size was too small to extrapolate too much from the results." Quite so. But they say, and I agree, that "having over 85% 'SJ' population within a sample of teachers" stands out. Now of course every time somebody mentions learning styles, someone else squawks that there is no evidential basis for learning styles. Will Thalheimer has even written, "I will give $1000 (US dollars) to the first person or group who can prove that taking learning styles into account in designing instruction can produce meaningful learning benefits."
I don't know whether this qualifies, but it seems to me there's something up when we see a study that shows almost all teachers matching a style described as:
I don't know whether this qualifies, but it seems to me there's something up when we see a study that shows almost all teachers matching a style described as:
- Focus on responsibility, study habits, teacher approval;
- learns through identifying and memorizing facts and procedures, through repetition and drill;
- prefers sequenced, step-by-step presentation of material;
- sees 'fundamentals' as most important - sees little value in abstractions and theoretical principles;
- prefers consistent, clearly defined procedures, order and structure; interested in what they and their classmates are 'supposed' to do;
- when asked to invent own procedures, or given vague directions, may become distressed and falter in their work;
- very detail-oriented, and interested in doing things 'the right way'; wants to know teacher preferences and expectations so they can conform to them exactly;
- craves membership in groups, especially if they involve instructor approval.
Today: 4 Total: 99 [Direct link] [Share]
