Are “learning styles” theories all they are cracked up to be? No. But are they myths? Absolutely not. Despite the fact that folks almost certainly do not have ONE “style” of learning that is hardwired into them, folks do seem to have preferred modes of learning, often different for different endeavors. The most basic classes of “learning styles” (actually, in this case, “modalities”) most often pout forth are kinesthetic, auditory, and visual, with many different variations and combinations and terminologies offered as theoretical possibilities using the basic “modalities”.
A preference or preferences, however, don’t mandate that a person cannot effectively learn in different ways. This is where the writer of the article and I part ways. Labeling learning styles a “myth” isjust silly. She even hints at the fact of the non-mythical nature of learning styles with the elliptical “admission against interest,”
“. . .a lot of evidence suggests that people aren’t really one certain kind of learner or another. . . ”
(implying, of course, that there are different ways of learning, just that, as anyone who’s ever taught OR LEARNED anything knows, different tasks may call for different ways of learning something).
Some things I learn best and most quickly by simply reading (and actually studying) text. Others, I learn best by simply observing elements closely and then getting hands on. Others seem to almost require visual, auditory, and kinesthetic modalities together to master (yeh, I can hear a piece of music and reproduce it, either in manuscript or via an instrument of my choice, but seeing a piece of sheet music, hearing it “in my head” in preview, then performing it–thus rehearsing–what I previously heard “in my head”), cementing them for me. *shrugs* Other things don’t seem to require all that much involvement for me.
But actual learning that lasts always takes one thing: doing what I have “learned,” putting it into practice, using it, reifying it, if you will.
I think that may be universal.