Talk:Learning styles

message: As the organizer for The Debunker Club (www.Debunker.Club), I feel compelled to complain that the article here hides criticism of the learning-styles idea. Casual readers will get the wrong impression that learning-styles approaches to learning design are sound, even if they have some critics. It seems now that the scientific research is overwhelmingly weighted against learning styles, so the Wikipedia article should reflect that. = Will Thalheimer, PhD  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willyth (talk • contribs) 13:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's Make Criticism More Salient

message: Though it is an improvement over the original page, it is still biased in favor or learning styles theory.  Too many resources cited and not enough discussion of the case against learning styles. Tweeker  11 February 2006 
: In agreement with Tweeker, I am an Ed. D. candidate (my school with go unnamed for now), my entire dissertation is based on the theory that there is no such thing as learning styles, only teaching styles, learning is a voluntary participatory process, which can be invoked with or without a formal (traditional) teacher or teaching environment. 137.190.80.161 (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even if learning styles do not exist, the theory of learning styles does. If there is evidence that contradicts the notion of learning styles, then put that in the article. Morganfitzp (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: The criticisms "Evidence or Lack of Evidence?" section is...erm...bigger than the section with actual information on the subject.  I'm thinking it should be trimmed a bit, or at least the informative section should be expanded upon.  Anyone well-versed in the subject who can write on it?  67.70.98.102 (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the critical section should in general be smaller than the informative section. Here the problem seems to be that the critical section is a good start, but the informative section isn't so informative. General information should be added, but I wouldn't trim the critical section because it's the best part of the article and by no means too long in itself.  Piechjo (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The problem is no one has bothered to write about learning styles from a neutral pov. Furthermore, there are as many views as there are (competing) learning styles models. ELSIN and its journal could be a starting point. I've understood that the idea of learning styles is now rejected by most researchers, but it's popular among the masses. One proof of that are the numerous school kids that constantly show up vandalising the article. Apparentely they've been sent by their teacher to find information on learning styles. Piechjo (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you for pointing out the error. Personally, I have read the Demos report and the quotes seem to be right. I also remember reading the ELSIN respond to Coffield saying there are better models than VAK. There's also a more recent ELSIN respond. I don't think it's all a matter of some brain scan data. Learning styles have been severely criticised since the end of the 1980s and the main issue is that there's no solid evidence for any of the claims. There are, in addition to learning styles, also cognitive and epistemological styles that might make more sense. I suppose psychologists agree that there are personality differences and this affects studying. I don't, however, believe that psychologists agree that learning as a cognitive process varies from one individual to the other except to the extend that some people learn better than others. Consequently, one of the fundamental questions in LS research has been whether people should stick to their style or whether they should learn a better way to study. This is one of the many things that should probably be discussed in the article. What I'm worried about is Wikipedia being used by commercial companies as advertising space because almost all LS models are commercial products, and the trademark owners have rarely been eager to give people the right idea of their scientific basis. Piechjo (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Section 

message: Right now the Models and theories section has just one sentence under it: "Over 80 learning style models have been proposed, each consisting of at least two different styles." Thanks for that. What are some of these models and theories? It's okay if not all 80 cannot be listed here, but how about some of the more widely accepted ones? Morganfitzp (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lettri: Cognitive Style Delineators; Hill: Cognitive Style Interest Inventory; Ramirez: Child Rating Form; Felder-Silverman Learning/Teaching Style Model; Reinert: Edmonds Learning Style Identification Exercise; Hunt: Paragraph Completion Method; Fleming: VARK model; Honey and Mumford: Learning Styles Questionnaire; Kolb: Learning Style Inventory; Grasha-Reichmann: The Grasha-Reichmann Student Learning Style Scales; Dunn-Dunn: Learning-Styles Inventory; Schmeck: Inventory of Learning Processes; McCarthy: 4MAT; Gregorc: Gregorc Style Delineator  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.82.241.136 (talk) 05:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Models? Theories?

message: This subsection seems like a self promotion by Jackson et al. All citations are their self-publications, instead of independent assessments by others. No criticism of this work is mentioned.
:I agree, and moved the above text from article. --130.230.209.68 (talk) 09:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Recent evidence" by Jackson

message: I removed the first refernce of this article. I doubt very much this source is considered a reliable source WP:RS. There is no evidence of independent fact checking by the authors. This appears to be an inferior source, and I am sure better sources for this statement are available. The page appears to exsist in order to sell a book, and the summaries appear to be over-simplistic and may not be accurate. This web page only references itself. This links go to questionable summations on the same page (except for the link that goes to a book). 
The reference looks like a reference within a reference. I don't have time to figure it out just now. All I can see is that the text of the article has not been altered. Here is the reference that I removed: </ref name=LdPride> + Learning styles are various approaches or ways of learning. They involve educating methods, particular to an individual, that are presumed to allow that individual to learn best. Most people prefer an identifiable method of interacting with, taking in, and processing stimuli or information.  Based on this concept, the idea of individualized "learning styles" originated in the 1970s, and acquired "enormous popularity".</ref name=pashler/>  
− LdPride. (n.d.). What are learning styles? Retrieved October 17, 2008</ref/>  ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed first reference

message: I am not a wikipedia person, but I wanted to make a suggestion.  The current last sentence reads, "Although Kolb's model is the most widely accepted with substantial empirical support, recent studies suggest the Learning Style Inventory (LSI) is seriously flawed"   I suggest something that says it is one of the most widely accepted, but throughout its history has had to face critiques that question the reliability and validity of the test. A recent study has questioned the psychometric soundness of version ____.  Kolb has constantly made revisions (1,2, 2a, 3, 3.1, 4)to address these concerns. One thing about Smith's webpage is that he cites older studies that critique Kolb's model.  It would be nice to note which versions they critiqued.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.82.241.136 (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Kolb's Model

message: This sums it up for me. http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/2012/04/do-students-have-different-learning-styles/ --John (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good layman's inroduction 

message: https://richarddawkins.net/2014/12/the-myth-of-learning-styles/ - The Myth of Learning Styles -Abhijeet Safai (talk) 13:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  A link which can be used in article  

message: I suggest removing the section on the Sudbury Model as it describes a model of education or (un)schooling, not a model describing individuals' potential learning styles. Smilingpolitely (talk) 11:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sudbury Model of Education not relevant to article 

message: Hi, in this diff, you changed the ref to a substantially older one, and changed a fair amount of content. Could you explain your rationale please? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 23:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so looking at it closely, I'm not sure that either the original ref, or the one you replaced it with, is in the right place. References are not intended to be external links, providing more information about a topic - they are intended to support assertions. At the point in the sentence where the original reference was placed, no assertion had yet been made. However, of the two of them, Leite's paper is more recent, and is secondary, so is probably the better one to use. I think a better approach would be to actual reposition the source so that it's actually supporting an assertion; if you feel that there are issues with the content, can you find an alternative (secondary) source to use to support your changes? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 01:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neil Fleming section 

message: As I said in my edit summary reverting , the edit in question is full of external links in the body text which is prohibited per WP:EL, and the edit looks like WP:CITESPAM of Joshua Cuevas's publications, which we've had problems with in this article before, e.g.: Special:Diff/736139549, Special:Diff/734089885, Special:Diff/732840790, Special:Diff/729499125, Special:Diff/723608172. Wikipedia is not for self-promotion of an author's publications. The prominent external link to Josh Cuevas's bio in the body text, plus the fact that the paragraph is all about Cuevas's publications, plus the fact that the editor's IP address (67.38.24.144) is in northern Georgia near the University of North Georgia which hosts the bio page page to which the aforementioned prominent external link points, really looks to me like self-promotion and undue weight on Cuevas's publications. Biogeographist (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joshua Cuevas publications 

message: We currently have a sentence in Learning styles#David Kolb's model that says:
The most recent work by Kolb that Smith cited is from 2005, and Smith did not address the changes in the 2015 edition of Kolb's book Experiential Learning.
I'm inclined to remove this.  The fact that a 2005 source did not review the 2015 edition should not surprise anyone, but having this sentence present in the article implies that the 2015 editing changed so significantly that it has overcome all of the objections.  We have no source saying that, or even implying it, and the source given for there being any changes at all is just Kolb's book.  I think that this is kind of statement is prohibited by Wikipedia:No original research, as it is exactly "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to...imply a conclusion not stated by the sources."  Some editor personally looked at the dates of these sources, personally analyzed them, and personally concluded that it was possible that Smith's objections might have been overcome by some unspecified changes in the latest edition of Kolb's book.  This is a NOR violation, and IMO it should be removed completely.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the sentence in question after it had been removed. I wrote the sentence originally. Now that the WP:OR problem with the sentence has been so clearly stated, I agree that the sentence is too strong, but I don't agree that it . The problem with the sentence is that I , not that I concluded that Kolb's theory had —I didn't conclude that at all, and I wouldn't infer that from the sentence that I wrote. I remember comparing the two editions of Kolb's book and seeing that there were significant changes that Smith's article doesn't address (though that was five years ago and now I don't remember the details). I wrote the sentence because when summarizing scholarship it is important to specify which version of a theory is being criticized. The  of such specification is even more problematic than the disputed sentence, in my opinion. To be clear, the purpose is not to defend Kolb's theory against objections, but to clarify which version of Kolb's theory is being criticized. What do you think of this change? Biogeographist (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That's much better.  I can live with that.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analyzing dates 

message: For the second time, I reverted 's addition of "unproven" to the lead section. Suggesting that there could be "scientific proof" of learning styles is not an improvement! Please do not add this again. Biogeographist (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unproven" 

message: — Assignment last updated by Jaqi h (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Literacy and Inclusion

message: matching the subjects with the possible career categories that will suit them best 102.219.42.137 (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lo 

message: — Assignment last updated by Ldaniels03 (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Content Area Literacy