So, you spend twenty years teaching with an idea in your head and then science tells you it has no foundation. How do you feel? The recent debunking in scholarly journals of the claims made for learning styles has left me feeling rather nostalgic.
It never seemed quite as clear as the literature made out even as I was trying to identify kids’ learning styles, and I can count on one hand the number of times that changing my manner of presentation had a “howzat!” confirmatory flash in my head. More than that I suppose I was rather drawn to the idea that my own style was predominantly visual and that what school had always lacked for me was colour, form and grace. Teaching to learning styles gave me an excuse to put the colour back in.
Learning style theory seemed to offer a way for chaotic personalities to get an out from the mind-numbing greyness of the institutional types who ran so many subjects as though learning were a mechanical operation. I wanted to dive in headfirst without counting the verb endings or the number of rivers in Africa, or how many years the Romans were in Britain.
It is a difficult moment for us arty types at the moment then. You cannot deny the elegance and simplicity of the refutation. It cuts through a lot of waffle like a hot knife through cheese: Occam’s razor tells us that this must be closer to the truth when the situation was neither diagnostically nor practically functional.
On the other hand, it is good to read what this blog says about the nuances of the refutation to keep alive in your mind that refuting learning styles as an explanatory theory is not exactly saying that good teaching is colourless.
http://cedarsdigest.blogspot.com.es/2010/02/learning-styles-whats-being-debunked.html?m=1