I am often critical of Daniel Willingham but I'm enthusiastic about this post. Writing about the learning styles debate, he notes that the "problem caused by the uncritical dismissal of disproven theories is that you might miss new developments." Then he (very smartly) shifts topics to describe the phenomenon with respect to eye-tracking studies in autistics, which have had a chequered history, but which have been revived in some new, and potentially good, science. And the point is clear: even if you're sure about a theory (for example, 'there are no learning styles'), more recent work might offer counter-examples to that theory. So what do you do? You ignore it. And - yes - believe it or not, that's the right response. Wait for the science. See if it's replicated. And base your views on the reserach (appropriately and critically read and interpreted). As Willingham himself notes, hist view on learning styles theory has changed over time (see here versus here). What will not move the needle one way or another is righteous indignation.
Today: 1 Total: 1748 [Direct link] [Share]
