“Learning styles” was debunked by ableists and ignorant people... they debunked it based on neurotypicality. On the idea that no one has disabilities or that people don’t rely on other senses and abilities when one is disabled, doesn’t work as it should, or isn’t there at all.
What is the old idea of “learning styles” you ask? It’s the idea that people have a preferred or perhaps ‘a leaning towards’ one of the learning styles over the others…. And that teachers / trainers should use all the different types of styles, so as to reach as many students as possible – and to not disadvantage anyone. It’s the idea that a person relies on one type of learning style (which can be both true and false simultaneously for each person). And that’s the problem – they debunked it based on bias and ignorance.
The learning styles being, ‘learning through one of three ways’:
1. oral communication (Spoken words), or
2. written communication (The written word, pictures and videos etc) or
3. kinetic learning (learn through doing – actively doing something to learn how to do it).
Now, if you’re human and not a robot – or if you’ve ever learnt anything in any time of your entire life: you’ll know that sometimes you’ll learn better/ understand better if someone sends you an email, or you read something for yourself (written). Or, you might find a quick conversation over the phone will clear up misunderstandings beautifully (oral)…. Or you’ll find that you won’t learn until you’ve actually done it (kinetic). This last one is me with an Ikea flat pack – I can’t learn, or do it if someone tells me how (oral), or if I read the instructions (written) – neither makes any sense at all – I have to actually start doing it to understand it.
This is why it was ridiculously debunked. Because a couple biased ignoramous people said “oh, but sometimes I use all three, and sometimes I use one or the other”…. Complete and utter moronic thinking. Of course that’s true! – but that doesn’t debunk something. That just means everyone needs different things at different times. You don’t get rid of something just because YOU as an ‘abled person’ can switch between styles when one of them is missing. Eg: if the teacher gives you verbal instructions and nothing else – you can still cope. That’s the definition of ableism. Assuming that your experience is everyones – and that everyone is able to do the same as you
When I did the Train the Trainer course (part of Cert IV Training and Assessment), We all undertook the ‘learning styles’ test – to prove that everyone is different. Not to prove that it’s debunked, or that you don’t need to teach using this theory – it was to actually prove that you do need to use all three. But the teacher at the time didn’t understand that aspect, but it became glaringly obvious to me.
M results and one other person in the class came out equally as ‘learns through all three methods’. The teacher was surprised because usually she didn’t get anyone in her class that comes out as that – she said it’s rare to have people’s results show all three equally.
And here’s the sitch (reason): I’m disabled!!!!! I have APD, processing differences, ADHD, vision issues and executive functioning issues up the wazoo. I switch equally between all three constantly, because I have to.
· If a teacher remains on verbal (oral) instruction; I tune them out from boredom (ADHD and executive issues), and from non-understanding (double empathy, APD etc).
· If it’s only written – I do better if I’m not having eyesight issues, but if I’m struggling like I am today with blurriness and extreme fatigue (due to dry spots on my eyes, astigmatism, lack of sleep from sleep disorders and fibromyalgia) I need to rely on other things.
· If I can only ‘do’ the learning (kinetic) I’m often disabled by extreme fatigue, executive dysfunction, fibromyalgia and other things…. So yes – I have learnt from more than 40 decades of practice – to switch between the three and never to rely on any of them…. I can only actually fully rely on the fact that none of them will work reliably.
It actually proves the learning styles IMO. It proves that we MUST teach/ train using all three…. Because everyone uses each of the styles at different times, and you cannot guess or assume when that will be – or that a person can just ‘use one of the other styles’ if one or two of them aren’t used.
They never researched why/ or if a child may need to learn something in a different style because of a learning disability or other disability.
Eg: if you taught/expect learners to only use ORAL methods you'd be ableist to all deaf students, HOH, people with APD, dyspraxia and apraxia, motor disinhibition, situationally nonspeaking and other disabilities
If you taught/expected learning using only WRITTEN methods you are ableist against people with dysgraphia, dyspraxia, irlens, dyslexia, dyscalculia, EDS, and other disabilities
If you are teaching /expecting learning only using KINETIC you are ableist against disabilities such as dysgraphia, dyspraxia, EDS, motor disinhibition, POTS, and other disabilities
Do you see that some disabilities span all three of the learning styles, some span two, some span one. The number of disabilities you have – the more you are disabled. The more you will struggle and the more you will rely on a teacher that uses all three methods – and one who tries to you meet you were you are. A teacher who understands this and learns how to help you to learn and to be able. Not one that believes myths and crap about something being debunked just because they want to use it as an excuse to not use all three mediums to teach.
Debunking is only true and right if it is debunked by researching and including all people. This "debunking" was not... and therefore wasn't a debunking at all- it was simply denying tools that work for some. It was about removing inclusive education and detrimenting many.
I’ve recently had the same thing happen in Australia with local councils removing bin collections. They ‘debunked’ the use of the bin by assuming that all people are able and do not have disabilities, babies or incontinence etc. They did focus groups with people who are able to debunk the use of a specific bin in society because they wanted to remove it – this is what’s called direct discrimination or “social exclusion”. It’s purposeful discrimination/exclusion in order to benefit a few. It doesn’t make it true or right – in fact it proves the opposite. It proves that the people doing the research have a conflict of interest and a predetermined outcome in mind. Eg: they wanted to stop using the bins (or the three learning styles) so they set out (using only abled people) to prove that it was unnecessary.