Is use of Learning Styles helping you teach and learn?

[Dave Marshak]

Put in the miles, and you will "get better". And the better you get, the better IT gets!.

I don't think that's true. I know a lot of skiers who put in a lot of miles without ever improving. None of them are aware of how awful they ski. Without that awareness they will never improve.

dm

 

[James]

The "most important movement in skiing" video that I linked to and discussed in epic's Intermediate Zone was a huge breakthrough for me. In it he had a TBL series of rollers to absorb. I got lucky and found a series of big rollers and lapped them about 15 times one morning. Changed

Where is that video? Searched but found nothing.

↑tch:
I was frequently amazed what clicked for some people -- a verbal aside, a quick illustration, a demonstration, an assignment that forces someone to actually DO something. This means I learned to offer material in lots of different ways, with lots of different cues. I tried to offer material in as many different ways as I could so that it would be available to as many people as possible.
↑James:
I'm frequently amazed what clicks for some people. I'll say something almost as an aside, and lightbulbs go on. It's often like really? That's what made the difference?

Hah! Almost exactly the same!. Hadn't seen that post yet either.
It can be bizarre what clicks for people. A challenge comes sometimes when what clicks for them is then followed by their explaining it in a way that is totally wrong, but the end result is what you're looking for. I think I deal with that best by just having them do it slowly and explain what's happening or what they're doing. Best to have them figure it out and readjust their explanation.

 

[François Pugh]

Theories come and go. When I got my B. Ed. years ago, "learning styles" was a popular theory. Now my daughter is studying for a B. Ed., and "learning styles" is a debunked theory. What is more persistent is observation, common sense, and applying what's needed.

There were bits and pieces of the learning styles theory that I disagreed with, and some practical applications. No description is perfect. I have neither the time nor the inclination to investigate the debunking.

Long before this learning style theory came to light, before my mom even met my dad, my mother was taking a nursing course. She discovered that she learned better having her room mate read to her than reading herself. Her room mate learned better reading.

People have more than one way they can learn, but in my experience for one reason or another (e.g. practice, experience, nurture, nature), some ways work better for some folk than others. Best try and cover all the bases, if you can do so without detriment.

 

[karlo]

this the original link? Learning Styles Debunked
https://www.psychologicalscience.or...ry-and-visual-learning-psychologists-say.html

There is no doubt that individuals

I had only seen the other reference at @razie website. But, not having only scanned that 180-something page paper, this article seems to say the same thing. No evidence. In fact, I think both state that a proper scientific experiment would be daunting, the long paper in detail, this article in brief. So, it comes down to maybe religion. Anyway, it's good for us to have some knowledge of all major faiths.

 

[Steve]

I searched YouTube for "the most important movement in skiing" and it was the first result.

 

[CalG]

"Learning styles" don't really exist except some part of a model of the process of learning. The PSIA learning styles were taken from David Kolb's learning model (which is itself controversial), but they are so simplified that they have lost their original meaning.

In the Kolb model, learning requires experience (feeling), observation, thinking and experimentation (doing), in that order. That's completely different from the PSIA idea that people learn only in one preferred style. That's an unnecessarily limiting concept that only gets in the way of learning, and it's not surprising that actual teachers don't find them useful.

@karlo commented that he had better success with "feelers" than with "thinkers." As @James said, that's more about body awareness than learning styles. People with good body awareness learn physical skills easily. Trying to teach skiing to someone without body awareness by asking them to think about more is a recipe for failure. No matter how much of a "thinker" you are, you need to learn some amount of awareness of the physical world in order to learn to ski.

dm

Dave,

When I read this expression from you, I read exactly the same thing I said in my post above. You chose to use more words, but the message is the same.
No objection, ..;-)

 

[HeluvaSkier]

@Steve

Not sure I love that series... looks pretty forced and un-natural... like the demonstrator doesn't know what the purpose of flexing actually is. As for terrain features... If you can ever find a spine, I find they can be MUCH more effective because the flexing can be timed with turns more easily (any shape/size/timing... not bound to the frequency of rollers).

 

[Fuller]

Not sure I love that series... looks pretty forced and un-natural... like the demonstrator doesn't know what the purpose of flexing actually is.

And that would bring us around to teaching styles and techniques. To me, the perfect demonstration of a particular move is much less important than how the material is broken down and presented. The intended audience for that series would probably never know the difference between how Guy Hetherington does flexing vs how Heluvaskier might do it. So if the student is getting good information from a less than perfect demonstration does it matter?

 

[HeluvaSkier]

So if the student is getting good information from a less than perfect demonstration does it matter?

The risk of having poor demonstrations is communicating the wrong thing, or communicating it incorrectly. An incorrect demonstration is unlikely to produce the desired outcome on its own... and if that's the case (assuming a desired outcomes is achieved) it isn't because of the demonstration. Further, in this particular example, the way it is demonstrated indicates that the skier doing the demonstrating misunderstands the purpose of the movement pattern being executed in a dynamic environment (regardless of what the audio may say)... IMO, there's a lot of arrogance in assuming one can teach something that they themselves can't actually demonstrate at the most basic/fundamental level.

 

[Fuller]

Well let's put it this way, I wouldn't feel so bad if at the end of the day I could ski as well as Guy Hetherington. You may be correct in your analysis (or not) but my appreciation for a well thought out presentation is undiminished.

 

[HeluvaSkier]

my appreciation for a well thought out presentation is undiminished

Nor should it be, however I think we can agree that is only one part of the learning equation. Ideally a teacher should be strong in all aspects so they can best teach their student how to learn (that's the real job isn't it? ..not movements or skills). Sadly, because skiing is a sport that requires one to perform, even the best, most-academically sound presentation, can be undone in one turn by a demonstration that doesn't walk the talk.

 

[James]

I searched YouTube for "the most important movement in skiing" and it was the first result.

Ah, thought it was on pugski.

I like the concept of relating it to bumps. I agree that a spine is even better. You have to absorb or you'll launch, and it forces you to change edges in the air or while flexed.

 

[HeluvaSkier]

FWIW, I had incredible success teaching a group of 5-7 year-olds how to flex using a spine this year. Extremely effective. Back to your regularly scheduled learning styles thread.

 

[CalG]

FWIW, I had incredible success teaching a group of 5-7 year-olds how to flex using a spine this year. Extremely effective. Back to your regularly scheduled learning styles thread.

Did you just say that you had multiple learning styles all advance their personal skills based on a single learning situation?

Profound!

 

[razie]

I had only seen the other reference at @razie website. But, not having only scanned that 180-something page paper, this article seems to say the same thing. No evidence. In fact, I think both state that a proper scientific experiment would be daunting, the long paper in detail, this article in brief. So, it comes down to maybe religion. Anyway, it's good for us to have some knowledge of all major faiths.

It's nornally considered religion or faith, when you believe in something without proof or evidence (i.e. supernatural) .

Like learning styles...

Not believing in something (like not believing in learning styles) is not in itself a religion, no matter how much you'd like to portray the "astylists" i.e. the non believers in learning styles, as "just another religion"... They are in fact not one.

Although, in this case, some could argue that with so many tests failing to provide evidence for it, that is in itself evidence against it!

Quote:

Given the lack of scientific evidence, the authors argue that the currently widespread use of learning-style tests and teaching tools is a wasteful use of limited educational resources.

 

[karlo]

a spine, I find they can be MUCH more effective

Spines are perfect. Me, I would prefer to perform the demonstration without leaving the spine. But, that's perhaps the next step in a progression.

Further, in this particular example, the way it is demonstrated (by Hethrington) indicates that the skier doing the demonstrating misunderstands the purpose of the movement pattern

For me, I thought the first episode was a good building block (stepping stone?) for introducing a skier to the concept and the feeling. The second episode seems to present the desired outcome; however, it seems to me there are some missing pieces in between the two episodes

 

[Dave Marshak]

There's a lot of research on the subject, with the general conclusion that

"The evidence is a great big zero" for learning styles, Pashler says. Given that, "it's kind of astonishing that people would pursue this notion."

The learning styles are one part of a model of how people learn. The model provides a way to organize your instruction. The proof of the model is the outcome from instruction. The model is never true or false, it is only useful or not.

I've found the Kolb model (which was the origin of the learning styles) to be useful. Kolb's conclusion that learning required all 4 styles in a particular order may or may not be true, but I think it works for ski instruction, or at least it did for me. Maybe that was because it required me to bring the student to the "feeler" style even if they were a "thinker," and maybe because you had to address the thinking part before the thinkers could move on to the feeling part. Maybe a little thinking helped the feelers as well.

The PSIA reduction of the styles in which every student has a preferred style which must dominate their instruction is just wrong. It is just way to limiting and pessimistic to believe that people can learn in only one way. It's not surprising that instructors find that it doesn't work.

dm

 

[tch]

The learning styles are one part of a model of how people learn. The model provides a way to organize your instruction. The proof of the model is the outcome from instruction. The model is never true or false, it is only useful or not.

I've found the Kolb model (which was the origin of the learning styles) to be useful. Kolb's conclusion that learning required all 4 styles in a particular order may or may not be true, but I think it works for ski instruction, or at least it did for me. Maybe that was because it required me to bring the student to the "feeler" style even if they were a "thinker," and maybe because you had to address the thinking part before the thinkers could move on to the feeling part. Maybe a little thinking helped the feelers as well.

The PSIA reduction of the styles in which every student has a preferred style which must dominate their instruction is just wrong. It is just way to limiting and pessimistic to believe that people can learn in only one way. It's not surprising that instructors find that it doesn't work.

dm

Excellent commentary!
Again, the value (and appropriate use) of the conceptual model isn't in the pigeon-holing of students into narrow categories; it is in expanding the range of approaches to a learner.

And...to repeat DM's point: The model is never true or false; it is only useful or not.

 

[karlo]

The PSIA reduction of the styles in which every student has a preferred style which must dominate their instruction is just wrong

I've been working on Level 2 and that didn't come across to me at all. But, then, there are a lot of things I missed.

I do recall having a student, a kid, constantly asking me why this and why that. I don't think I handled it well. Not that it was a disaster, but it could have been better.

 

[Dave Marshak]

@karlo IME most instructors never hear more of the learning styles than the simplistic idea that puts their students into cubbyholes. You probably shouldn't challenge that directly in an exam. You can say that all skiers need body awareness, and that means it's the instructor's job to bring everyone, especially thinkers, into feeling mode, but directly contradicting the PSIA learning styles will get your pin spiked.

FWIW Joan Heaton brought learning styles into PSIA 30+ years ago, and she was the one who got me to read David Kolb. I think she would generally agree with what I have written here. She told me directly that everyone needed to learn in every learning style.

dm