No such thing as a 'visual learner'

[realmayo]

This would have been off-topic elsewhere, so:

 

If you are a visual learner

 

 

It's worth pointing out that concepts such as being a visual learner or whatever are just myths, and shouldn't be used to influence study methodology. If someone, say, believes that characters will be particularly difficult for them because they've decided they're a so-called 'auditory learner', that could actually impede studying Chinese.

 

 

This is from the guy who accidentally started it all: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2013/10/16/howard-gardner-multiple-intelligences-are-not-learning-styles/

 

Sometimes people speak about a “visual” learner or an “auditory” learner. The implication is that some people learn through their eyes, others through their ears. This notion is incoherent. Both spatial information and reading occur with the eyes, but they make use of entirely different cognitive faculties. Similarly, both music and speaking activate the ears, but again these are entirely different cognitive faculties.

 

Recognizing this fact, the concept of intelligences does not focus on how linguistic or spatial information reaches the brain—via eyes, ears, hands, it doesn’t matter. What matters is the power of the mental computer, the intelligence, that acts upon that sensory information, once picked up.

 

 

also

http://www.wired.com/2015/01/need-know-learning-styles-myth-two-minutes/

http://www.skeptic.com/insight/the-myth-of-learning-styles/

[anonymoose]

So what? It just sounds like arguing over semantics. Call it what you want, but it doesn't seem far fetched that some people are more apt at retaining visual information and others at retaining auditory information.

[realmayo]

Just because something isn't far-fetched doesn't mean it must be true. Plus we're not talking about retaining information but learning: the issue is learning styles, and studies show that students don't learn any better when they're taught in their so-called 'own' learning style.

 

As the guy who 'invented' it all says, it's incoherent to separate visual and auditory when it comes to learning complex skills. Is reading Chinese visual or auditory? After all, it's largely a phonetic writing system.

[anonymoose]

A large part of learning is retaining information, especially in a language, which is highly reliant on commiting information to memory.

 

In terms of logic, you are right in that "just because something isn't far-fetched doesn't mean it must be true", but again you are arguing over semantics. The point I'm trying to make is hardly controversial, if you are willing to consider it without bias.

 

I agree with part of your quote:

 

the concept of intelligences does not focus on how linguistic or spatial information reaches the brain—via eyes, ears, hands, it doesn’t matter. What matters is the power of the mental computer, the intelligence, that acts upon that sensory information, once picked up.

 

So essentially, what the author is saying, is that more intelligent people are better at learning languages. Well, no shit, Sherlock!

 

Unfortunately, however, he is trying to use the self-evidence of this statement to back up his previous assertion about "visual" and "auditory" learners, to which there is no direct connection:
 

Sometimes people speak about a “visual” learner or an “auditory” learner. The implication is that some people learn through their eyes, others through their ears. This notion is incoherent. Both spatial information and reading occur with the eyes, but they make use of entirely different cognitive faculties. Similarly, both music and speaking activate the ears, but again these are entirely different cognitive faculties.

 

What he completely fails to take account of (at least in the part you quoted), is that learning is not simply about processing information, but also about retaining it. This is especially significant for a language, which to a large extent, is dependent on the retention of vocabulary and the patterns in which it appears.

 

Some people find it easier to retain visual information - words/characters on a page, and others auditory, i.e. speech. I would call the former a "visual learner", and the latter an "auditory learner".

 

I do agree though, that these concepts aren't particularly helpful. I think the problem is that by giving them names, it pigeon-holes people, when in reality, people are just somewhere along a continuous spectrum of competency in both areas. It is easy to use "being an auditory learner" as an excuse for one's deficiencies in learning to read and write, when fundamentally, what is really needed when you aren't good at something is to dedicate more time and effort to improving it.

[realmayo]

If someone is a bit better than average at remembering sounds, so what?

 

Does it mean they're better learning info from an audiobook than from reading? Almost certainly not -- for a start, reading is a lot quicker than listening.

 

If someone is better at remembering visual things -- does that mean going to learn better from a book than from a lecture? I don't see why -- remembering words on a page is only a small part of the ability to read, and therefore is only a tiny part of learning from reading.

 

 

Another example: if you're good at remembering conversations you've heard, then you'll be better-than-average at reading! This is because you read a word for the first time, which you've heard once before, you'll be more likely to remember it than someone with less good auditory memory (assuming that there really is a spectrum of good-to-bad auditory memory).

 

 

So, being able to remember shapes well or remember sounds well does not actually translate into any particular learning style being better for you.

 

You say, this is just semantics, but you're wrong, I'm saying that these concepts are meaningless and such self-labelling shouldn't impact upon a learning style.

 

 

So essentially, what the author is saying, is that more intelligent people are better at learning languages. Well, no shit, Sherlock!

 

I shouldn't have quoted the bit about "intelligences" because that won't make sense unless you read the link. He's not talking about learning languages specifically.

 

 

Some people find it easier to retain visual information - words/characters on a page, and others auditory, i.e. speech. I would call the former a "visual learner", and the latter an "auditory learner".

 

Since you mention semantics: don't you see that there's a lot of non-evidenced conjecture required to get from "easier to retain visual information" to "a visual learner". If an expert is saying that "there is strong evidence that human beings have a range of intelligences and that strength (or weakness) in one intelligence does not predict strength (or weakness) in any other intelligences" what evidence or studies do you have that say he is wrong?

 

 

Edit: also, what is "learning to retain visual information"? Does this mean that, if you've got a good memory for seeing shapes, you'll remember the contents of a newspaper article better than most people? How? Because you 'see' the words on the page in your memory? That's a photographic memory, but I would say 99.9% of people who remember facts from a newspaper article are not "seeing" the printed words in front of them, they are instead locating the meaning of the words from their memory

[anonymoose]

If someone is a bit better than average at remembering sounds, so what?

 

Does it mean they're better learning info from an audiobook than from reading?

 

This is just a nonsensical comparison. If someone is "a bit better than average" at remember sounds, well, first of all, presumably by "than average" you mean compared to the general population.

 

Then you say, "Does it mean they're better learning info from an audiobook than from reading?", which is a comparison between two abilities of the same person. Them being "a bit better than the average person" in one competency tells you absolutely nothing about their ability in the other competency, or indeed the relative abilities between the two competencies.

 

If someone is better at remembering visual things -- does that mean going to learn better from a book than from a lecture? I don't see why -- remembering words on a page is only a small part of the ability to read, and therefore is only a tiny part of learning from reading.

 

The ability to read and learning from reading are two different things. Of course you must have at least some minimum ability to read if you are to use reading as a tool for learning, but they are in no way the same thing. You are correct in that remembering words on a page is only a small part of the ability to read, but if you want to learn from what you've read, then remembering words on a page may be significant.

 

I say "may be" significant because this is a complex multifactorial issue. For learning abstract concepts, then the interpretation and processing of the information contained in the words you've read is likely to be more important than remembering the exact words themselves. On the other hand, for language learning, of which a big part is just memorisation of vocabulary, then if visualisation of words you've seen is an aid to memory, of course it will help if you've seen them.

 

Whether or not it's better to learn from a book than a lecture depends on the individual involved. Again though, not a very useful comparison, because it's impossible to control for the many other factors which may have a more decisive influence than whether the information is imparted via a visual or auditory meduim. In the end, which is better is subjective.

 

if you're good at remembering conversations you've heard, then you'll be better-than-average at reading! This is because you read a word for the first time, which you've heard once before, you'll be more likely to remember it than someone with less good auditory memory (assuming that there really is a spectrum of good-to-bad auditory memory).

 

No. If you're good at remembering conversations you've heard, then you'll be better at reading than you would be if you're not good at remembering conversations you've heard. It tells you nothing about your ability relative to the average.

 

So, being able to remember shapes well or remember sounds well does not actually translate into any particular learning style being better for you.

 

How does this follow on from your previous point? First you say good auditory memory is beneficial to reading, and now you're saying good auditory memory (or visual memory) does not confer any benefit?

 

If an expert is saying that "there is strong evidence that human beings have a range of intelligences and that strength (or weakness) in one intelligence does not predict strength (or weakness) in any other intelligences" what evidence or studies do you have that say he is wrong?

 

Experience tells me that he is wrong. I have to admit though, that I don't care enough to read his reports, but I certainly haven't been convinced by what you've quoted here.

[Mr John]

Well, this conversation was interesting enough to make me roll out of bed rather than sleeping in. Thanks.

 

Although trying to focus on the larger points being made - rather than just the nitpicking - is proving to be quite a challenge, I'll give it a go.

 

Overall, I don't think you two actually differ that much on the fundamentals. Instead, it seems like the main issue, as anonymoose claims, is one of semantics. The question is: "Does it actually matter whether or not we use terms like visual learner or auditory learner?" Real Mayo argues that it does because it can become a self fulfilling prophecy and is conceptually incoherent. Anonymoose's defends the common sense notion that such differences do exist; in other words, that we should call a shovel a shovel.  

 

Personally, I think semantics do matter; as the way in which something is framed can have a profound effect on how we think about it. For this reason, avoiding the labels seems like a worthy aim.

 

You also raise questions about the difference between processing and retention, as well as the relationship between visual and auditory skills. In each case, you seem to oscillate between treating them as separate or inter-related - depending on the point you are trying to make. I think this is a mistake; it is clearly the latter. While attempting to untangle how they are all related in a causal way is next to impossible, it's still interesting to think about.

 

I know I simplified your arguments quite a lot, so there's a possibility you two will feel short-changed. Please don't hesitate to set me straight!

[realmayo]

Anonymouse:

 

So, being able to remember shapes well or remember sounds well does not actually translate into any particular learning style being better for you.

 

How does this follow on from your previous point? First you say good auditory memory is beneficial to reading, and now you're saying good auditory memory (or visual memory) does not confer any benefit?

 

 

The confusion is here: I'm not saying any skill is without benefit. I'm saying that there is no benefit to tailoring a learning style to any of them. It's as simple as that. Even if someone is better-than-average at remembering sounds, he should be taught the same way as someone who you think is better-than-average at remembering visual things.

 

Of course you can disagree. But you would have no evidence to back you up, just a gut-instinct. A quick google and you'll see that "learning styles" are a myth, or rather, that there is no evidence that being taught in such a tailored learning style will be good for a student.

 

I don't blame you for preferring the myth rather than the evidence and the experts -- you're not the only one who may be emotionally invested in the concept of 'learning styles'. I just came across a webpage written to help teachers gently explain all this to colleagues who might be unwilling to accept that there's no evidence for the effectiveness of tailored learning-style teaching:

 

The myths that put people into special categories, such “visual learners” or “digital natives,” have a powerful emotional appeal. As a result, questioning them can backfire. I’ve certainly received some impassioned responses, and I know that some of you have, too.

In Urban Myths about Learning and Education, the authors suggest that these myths could be a type of moral panic. In a moral panic, believers claim that there are stark differences between groups of people and that only moral people care about these differences.

Emotions can run high thanks to the believer’s moral commitment. For example, imagine that I believe in learning styles and I’m a member of a team on an elearning project. I notice that no one is planning any narration, so I say earnestly, “Don’t forget the auditory learners!” Someone else says, “Oh, that’s all been debunked.”

I’ve never heard that before. How might I respond?

“Are they saying I’m an idiot?” I think. “I’m not! I care about the learners! The team is just finding excuses to take shortcuts. They don’t care about the learners like I do!” So I fight back, maybe by debating learning styles or just resisting others’ ideas.

This is the “worldview backfire effect,” according to the authors of The Debunking Handbook, available for free from SkepticalScience.com.

How can we respond?

One way to avoid the backfire effect could be to frame your disagreement in a way that doesn’t threaten the believer’s moral position. That way, you can keep their emotions from rising and clouding their thinking.

For example, you might first acknowledge the believer’s compassion and then offer alternatives that meet even more important needs, so agreeing with you won’t harm their position as someone who cares about the learners.

 

 

Also from a cognitive psychologist:
 

Today when I suggest to students that learning styles are no more than a myth, I can hear their collective jaws drop, regardless of whether they’re undergraduates or graduate students, because learning styles have been preached to them the entire time they’ve been in school. The graduate students concern me the most because they’re supposed to know the research. And I used the term “preached” because these students have been convinced via no more than word of mouth, are asked to accept the information based on faith, and many come to hold a strange religious-like fervor for the concept. That’s not how science works and it shouldn’t be how education works.

 

It has been no easy task combating this common misconception in college classrooms, particularly when it is reinforced in textbooks, by other professors (who are also supposed to know the research), and in public schools where students do their internships. The research we’re doing at the University of North Georgia on learning styles has two purposes – it allows us to collect data on the effects of learning styles and contrast it to a stronger model, dual coding, but it also lets us demonstrate, in real time, to students who will one day be teachers how what they’ve long believed to be true simply does not work when put to the test.

[realmayo]

Mr John, unfortunately I don't know enough about this topic to get into detail about, say, how visual memory might affect one's ability to learn-through-reading rather than learn-at-a-lecture, and I got a bit entangled in that above.

 

Instead I should have kept it simple: the experts and the studies show no evidence that students learn better if taught to a learning style that is tailored to their supposed visual/auditory/kinetic/whatever preferences.

 

If someone can come up with the evidence, fine. If not, it's a myth.

 

 

The topic about someone's visual memory or auditory memory making a difference to how they learn -- that's beyond my competence. Both English and Chinese writing systems are basically phonetic, so is reading just visual or does it involve your sense of sound too? I think it's an interesting question but it's irrelevant to the broader point, that the 'learning styles' concept is a myth.

 

Again, someone with a photographic memory or the equivalent for listening -- such people do exist but I think they are outliers: people either have a photographic memory or they don't. There's no continuum there of 'I can see in my mind's eye about 30% of the page of that newspaper article I read yesterday'. However this is getting away from the broader point, that the learning styles concept is a myth.

[anonymoose]

Your argument has suddenly taken a big shift from "no such thing as a visual learner" to "the experts and the studies show no evidence that students learn better if taught to a learning style that is tailored to their supposed visual/auditory/kinetic/whatever preferences".

 

People's prefered learning styles depend on a whole myriad of factors, so it wouldn't surprise me if the researchers were unable to isolate a significant difference in efficacity between teaching styles tailored to individual preferences. What I do know though, having been a teacher, is that it is impossible to tailor a single teaching style that is optimum for every student in a class.

 

Anyway, I think we largely agree that "visual learning" and "auditory learning" are not particularly fruitful concepts, even if I disagree with your premise that there is not even such thing as a visual learner. Beyond that, this argument is like picking holes in a block of emmental, so I'll leave it here.

[realmayo]

Your argument has suddenly taken a big shift from "no such thing as a visual learner" to "the experts and the studies show no evidence that students learn better if taught to a learning style that is tailored to their supposed visual/auditory/kinetic/whatever preferences".

 

They're the same thing! Someone who prefers visual things does not learn better when following a curriculum tailored to their visual preference. Therefore, they're not a visual learner! They don't learn better that way. Taking into account their alleged visual preferences doesn't impact their learning. So how can the term "visual learner" have any meaning?

 

 

Anyway, anonymoose, you're no fool and if you are interested in learning more about the topic there's a whole internet worth of material with which to educate yourself. Or you could just read wikipedia's intro at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_styles You're clearly interested enough to have posted four times here.

 

However if it's more a matter of belief or faith (perhaps you also believe that humans "only use 10% of their brains"), well, there's no point arguing any further.

[Shelley]

Well this is the first I have ever heard of any of this.

 

I would have thought that a teacher teaching a class of kids in a school almost anywhere in the world would be teaching in a way that would cover all the different types of child, not different types of learning although this could be argued to be the same thing.

 

A good teacher would engage all students in the class regardless of learning style or ability. This is one sign of a good teacher.

[imron]

It is easy to use "being an auditory learner" as an excuse for one's deficiencies in learning to read and write, when fundamentally, what is really needed when you aren't good at something is to dedicate more time and effort to improving it.

I agree with this.  People might have a preference for 'visual' vs 'auditory' learning but that's just because they haven't developed enough skill/practice in the other style of learning.

 

That is something that is easy to develop with correct practice, and this appears to be shown by the research realmayo has linked to - you'll learn just fine with the other method once you start practicing and developing skills with it.

 

The problem is when people defeat themselves with self-fulfilling prophecies such as 'I'm a visual learner' and so give up on developing the other skills.

[li3wei1]

I prefer learning with my eyes closed, and my belly full of wine. What kind of learner does that make me?

[tysond]

@li3wei1 You have to learn right for your blood type.  And your blood type is alcohol.