However, if it is not research based than it cannot be argued has having validity.

It is dangerous. To know that students of education are being trained in these unfounded theories and making educational decisions based on faulty presuppositions is detrimental to our students.

Students prefer to do things they are good at. Those who have strong vocabularies and syntax in oral language tend to perform better in English and social studies. The converse, those students who are weaker in those cognitive skills, can be partially compensated by utilizing visuals and having relatively difficult texts read to them. That doesn’t mean that they have a preferred learning style, just a deficiency in specific cognitive tasks that certain subjects demand of them.

The reason why so many people believe in it is because there are intrinsic implications to being correct. This does not mean there is tangible evidence or a need to create such tailored and exhaustive lessons. Simply basing your subject domain on the set of cognitive tasks that underly its structure with multi-sensory support is valid enough.

Compensatory education has always been an issue with education. Remedial education has a place, it should be used to help students eviscerate their particular discrepancies in focused cognitive tasks that are impairing their performance in particular subject areas. Learning styles does not necessarily complete this task.

If a student has a deficiency in math computation, reading, or writing one would correctly assume that they need explicit instruction in how to improve those skills. By providing some ancillary supports in a classroom such as pictures, videos, auditory explanations at grade level, and novel experiences, students can increase comprehension in those subject areas. However, this does not denote a support for creating differentiated classrooms based on multiple-intelligences or learning styles.

As someone who started off doing just that, and not moving to a more classical form of instruction with the amendment of multi-sensory supports, I can say that my “anecdotal” evidence supports the latter.

Best,

Jason

Best

Jeff

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence on that you are right. Many learners report a see-do, or look-say sequence that helps them learn better. Don’t know of research that supports it.

In the classroom, you got to use what is working, as long as there is no downside.

As I said in the article, just because there is no research on something, you can still use a strategy. You just can’t call it “research-supported.”

Cheers