to ask whether you know how you learn?

[shudup]

One popular theory, the VARK model, identifies four primary types of learners: visual, auditory, reading/writing, and kinesthetic.

I've been strongly academic because of books, but I have had this testing done on me in a couple of workplaces and I come out really weak on auditory (which is what most lecturing consists of) and very strongly kinesthetic.

I learned over the years, but didn't realise I was doing it until it was pointed out to me, that I would have to write what was being said and that was enough to get something into my head (writing was enough of kinesthesia). But hearing something? You might as well be talking to a hole in the wall for all that I absorbed.

Anyone else had this done?

I didn't know this had been debunked.
I always thought of myself as a visual learner. I have to see it written down. But I also have to write it to make it really sink in - does that make me a kinaesthetic learner too?
I remember writing pages and pages of notes out for my school exams - not to re-read but just to get in into my head. It worked.
I'm learning French at the moment - if something is spoken to me I have to see it in my head in written form to remember it.
I wonder what I'd be like if I had been born blind - would I have adapted to be an auditory learner or would I have not been able to learn as much??

VAK/VARK is pretty much discredited nowadays but some outdated teacher training providers still expect it

Your post is interesting OP because I've realised that there's no point in me writing anything down : I learn by doing.

I'm learning French at the moment - if something is spoken to me I have to see it in my head in written form to remember it.

^^

Imagine if you were a kid who couldn't write? You'd just repeat the sound and remember the syntax
( eventually!)

My DD learnt a bit of French with La Jolie Ronde - that was all spoken (or sung). But she couldn't spell any of it. I suppose that really answers my question - you just adapt.
Maybe I'm too old to adapt though - I know how to write so that's my default.

@shudup how old are and how much money do you have? Really?! As a qualified teacher, I find this appalling.

And before you start.. *you is obviously missing. Get down from your high horse.

I was just thinking this was all the rage when I did my teacher training but not anymore... over a decade later..

I'm wondering whether or not I will come on MN in the morning and read this thread all over again, having already forgotten all about it...

Or will the fact that I'm posting on it help me to remember?

I did a session on this in school and found it tremendously helpful. I’m a reading/writing learner. Absolutely terrible at auditory learning and my inability to remember song lyrics is an ongoing testimony to that.

I’m not sure what relevance ‘debunking’ it has for me as I’ve been applying to great effect for 20 years.

As previous posters have stated, the theory has been disproven. You may feel you have a preference but how you learn best depends on context. You may think you are an auditory learner but the best way to know what the continent of Africa looks like is for you to see a visual not to have it described to you. The current evidence base in learning research points to direct instruction methods as being most effective. (But confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance will probably win out on this thread by the look of it.)

What is 'direct instruction methods'?

I know that my results showed up that I would learn the new role best by shadowing and trial and error. Others got results such as that they would learn best by reading an instruction manual on the role. I wouldn't learn too much from reading an instruction manual. I'd be still there studying it now lol.

Yes, I think the physical act of writing makes you kinesthetic. I'm like another poster. Would write things down, but not read over the notes either lol.

There’s a lot of research saying that for most adult learners active teaching/learning will promote deeper understanding/learning.

So PowerPoint type lectures or telling someone how to do something isnt the best way for most people. They need to actually do the thing or an activity based on it. So if learning biology for example not to have a lecture on how the heart works but to make a model of it.

Misknit - Absolutely, it is all confirmation bias. Try learning the different flags of the world Kinaesthetically, or learning the words to a rap visually, most people don't. Most people will use different learning approaches for different things.

"The current evidence base in learning research points to direct instruction methods as being most effective."
Interestingly, I was at uni yesterday and we were studying this. Although it is very much in favour, the research base that Krischner and Sewell use to justify the superiority of direct instruction can very much be questioned. So whilst it's in favour, not so sure the evidence will play out to show that it is the best way of learning!

It was debunked then the more recent work in neuro science is questioning the de bunking.

I know that my results showed up that I would learn the new role best by shadowing and trial and error.

As many PPs have already said: learning styles have been comprehensively debunked by research. These tests are a con.

If you are weak at a particular skill (like listening), the best thing to do is practice. There is no intrinsic learning style which means you can't do it.

Nobody learns well by only listening, writing at reading- lots of practice yourself and a range of input is always better.

The current evidence base in learning research points to direct instruction methods as being most effective

Is this what was referred to as didactic teaching 10 years ago? When I trained to be a teacher it was spoken of very disapprovingly. The different learning styles were in together with independent learning. One teacher I worked with became completely swept up in independent learning and was really rude about my style (which I have now learnt is in fashion again!).

I admit I take a lot of educational research with a pinch of salt and borrow bits as they seem suitable. I used to work in the physical sciences and even when we only changing one independent variable and really ensuring the other variables were controlled it was still hard to replicate results. Teaching for a couple of weeks and you know different teachers and different kids will lead to different outcomes. Let alone different time of day, term and even weather will affect how the kids learn.

I'll give you an example. Brexit debates on here.
I can understand all the big words used when reading, but I can't make head nor tail of what some posters actually mean!
So I'm usually the dope who asks them to explain in real terms what their theories actually mean. So explain it to me with an example. This annoys the theorists lol.
Bizarrely you might think I'm thick, but I managed to achieve in the top 5% in my country in A-level equivalent. So I'm far from thick - there are just some things I need to see to understand, or to do to learn.

My dd is a visual learner .
Definitely helped finding that out when it came to learning her times tables .
Not sure what I am

Buttersnipe - I clearly can comprehend writing (otherwise I wouldn't be engaging on a written forum). I can comprehend that you're being rude for example.

What you call a lack of reading comprehension skills can actually mean, that the method it's delivered by (despite your Guardian article), just doesn't sink into all brains?

The aim of communication is to communicate. Do you argue with that?

You've linked to a Guardian article (which I haven't bothered to click on).

Your means of communication is solely by the written word.

Mine is more complex.

It might be more helpful if the people saying VARK has been debunked provided some context

My understanding is that there's nothing to debunk about the fact that V, A, R/W and K exist and are styles of learning. What has been updated is that it is no longer thought that we each have one or two preferred/more effective methods.

It's currently thought that a good range of delivery is what helps. So eg in an anatomy and physiology teaching session I might hand around an articulated model joint for people to touch and move, hand out a diagram for people to label and annotate, and deliver a short lecture about the structures in the knee or whatever it is that we are doing. Probably with some video clips.

Obviously some subjects lend themselves to delivery in mainly or wholly one of the learning styles.

Oh, and fidgeting and fiddling is a helpful thing for some people's learning, not "naughty" behaviour.