How we learn (and teach)

[rmcrobertson]

Well, sorry, but....and I'm speaking as an educator....


First off, I have seen nothing whatsover to indicate that NLP is anything other than quackery, based on flimsy evidence and large, very large jumps from what science there is to some very weird conclusions. We simply don't have anything like enough knowledge of the brain, its function, and learning to draw any of these conclusions.

Second, the, "different learning styles," material has been around since the 1950s. I'd refer folks back to J.P. Guillford's work. It is very popular now in academic circles, particularly in community college and K-12 education, and particularly as a way of understanding and addressing the learning difficulties of the poor and the working class.

Which is a clue about what the problem is. It's an attempt to avoid dealing with issues of equal education and social justice--and at times, it's borderline racist, because...welll..guess who the, "non-verbal," learners turn out to be?

In English, there's another problem, one that shows what the issue is. Reading and writing are fundamental skills, and do whatever you will-visualization exercises, "thought-maps," brainstorming, make up songs--both our educational system and the professional job market pay off on reading, writing, and the associated cognitive skills. They do not pay off on, say, kinesthetic ability.

Then you add in the claptrap about, "social intelligence," and you start lying to students. Why not just accept that people are differently talented? It's something I had to learn about the martial arts, since I know people who are way, way more gifted than I am. I can write all the essays I want, and I ain't gonna move like Juan Serrano.

All of this stuff is based on pseudo-science.

 

[mj-hi-yah]

Robert,
As always, I enjoyed your thought provoking post and interesting perspectives. First let me say don't apologize for your views. Let’s talk a bit about them though. I also speak as an educator. I can say from my perspective as a teacher that I agree with you on some points and perhaps disagree on others. I agree that often in education concepts are "repackaged" and reintroduced as new and innovative. A good example would be in teaching children to read. Phonics, after in some places being thrown out with the bath water, became rediscovered as the miracle cure to helping some learners in reading - nothing much new there.
As far as NLP goes I've not investigated or read anything much about it...I will keep an open mind there though. It seems worthy of exploration at least.

Second, the, "different learning styles," material has been around since the 1950s. I'd refer folks back to J.P. Guillford's work. It is very popular now in academic circles, particularly in community college and K-12 education, and particularly as a way of understanding and addressing the learning difficulties of the poor and the working class. Which is a clue about what the problem is. It's an attempt to avoid dealing with issues of equal education and social justice--and at times, it's borderline racist, because...welll..guess who the, "non-verbal," learners turn out to be?

Knowing what I have found in my own experiences it is difficult to find common ground here. There is so much to this I could not possibly show the depth of it all in a forum like this. I can tell you that I have read tons of research on it, and tested it myself. I have personally tested my classes and have seen no evidence that learning style testing of today is racist in any way. Further, I have tested adults who are non-verbal learners and have found that it has nothing to do with their race. It has to do with how they, as individuals, perceive information and how best to meet the needs of individual students in a classroom or any learning environment. I’m not sure how well read you are on all of this, and I have not read the work you site here, but I imagine the material from the 1950's concerning learning styles and the advantages to understanding it have developed trememdously since that period. I will even go so far as to say that in the 1950's it's entirely possible that this concept initially may have developed to give advantages to certain groups. Public education in America has not always been equal opportunity. That is a known fact. I’m sure you are probably aware, this year happens to mark the 40th anniversary of Brown vs. the Board of Education. We have come a very very long way in 40 years…

In English, there's another problem, one that shows what the issue is. Reading and writing are fundamental skills, and do whatever you will-visualization exercises, "thought-maps," brainstorming, make up songs--both our educational system and the professional job market pay off on reading, writing, and the associated cognitive skills.

They do not pay off on, say, kinesthetic ability.

Without realizing it perhaps you make my point. Let me explain. Only 5 % of the population is purely Kinesthetic in their learning. In understanding learning styles we come to know that there are ways for the kinesthetic learner to perceive and input the same information that a visual learner for instance has little problems doing. This is because the act of reading is quite conducive to the visual learner, and as you point out is a fundamental skill which leads to a pay off in many schools and the job market. Visual learners often have an easier time excelling in these environments. The reason being that reading is a visual task. Kinesthetic learners are sometimes seen as “slower” learners by some, simply because using their eyes is not the channel through which they are able to perceive information, and most school learning is and remains dependent on reading. This is especially true of higher education, where learning needs more often go unaddressed and there is little multi-sensory presentation of material to be learned.

Often times Kinesthetic learners have been found to be hyperactive and may be found to have attention deficits. This has nothing to do with intelligence. It is the schools that sometimes fail them for presenting material for them to learn in ways that they can not digest it. Kinesthetic learners absorb information best that is input through body movement (large muscle movement) as they interact with the space around them. They remember best what is done, not what is seen or heard. They learn best through experiential learning like science experiments, sports activities and field trips. They are the action students. In Changing the way they are taught you have a better chance of helping them to find success. I agree visualizations will not aid in the kinesthetic learner’s understanding. You, generically speaking, need to teach them through action. Here are a just few famous Kinesthetic learners…Mozart, Jim Carey, Whoopie Goldberg, Mariette Hartley & Robin Williams. All of these people are creative, innovative & successful.

Here is another example pertaining to different learning needs for people reading this post who are not in education… What does this word say when you attempt to read it? qnqqy
To a child with a learning disability like dyslexia this is one way that they might perceive the word puppy. Some children have difficulty with object permanence in their minds and letters that are perceived as stationary in the mind of the average person flip and turn when perceived by the dyslexic. Does this mean that this child is unable to learn or unintelligent? No. Some of our greatest minds in history like Albert Einstein were dyslexic. He and others like him just needed a different way to learn things. We understand so much more about it today.

Then you add in the claptrap about, "social intelligence," and you start lying to students.

Why not just accept that people are differently talented? It's something I had to learn about the martial arts, since I know people who are way, way more gifted than I am. I can write all the essays I want, and I ain't gonna move like Juan Serrano.

You make my point very strongly here. However I prefer the term multiple intelligence. If you have not and are interested in exploring this further, check out the work of Howard Gardner. The reason Juan Serrano may excel in the Martial Arts may very likely be that he is a kinesthetic learner. Martial Arts are perfect for the kinesthetic learner, because the learning is performance based and not written. Yes we need to accept that we learn differently and value multiple intelligences in ourselves and others. You can write awesome essays because of the type of learner that you are. Written expression is a byproduct of your form of intelligence. In accepting the idea of understanding learning styles you are in fact embracing the knowledge that people are differently talented. Our learning needs and our talents are interconnected.
MJ :asian:

 

[rmcrobertson]

Sure.

However, my points were accuracte.

1. I mentioned Guilford because, despite the claims that this stuff's new, it's actually been kicking around for quite a while. There were responses to the idea that intelligence could be defined as some general, "g," going back into the 19th century; the criticism of the Binet/Stanford-Binet tests have been extant since at least the late 1940s.

2. It's been clear for quite some time that IQ tests, as well as tools like the MMPI, are culturally loaded, to say the least. I'm simply following out a long line of argument, and adding that the "learning styles," argument is, so far as I'm concerned, just another bourgeois intellectual desperate attempt to legitimate--which in this case means, to render invisible--what class and "race," dopes to the measure of intelligence in this society.

3. I've repeatedly had to sit in seminars and hear people spout this stuff. It's pseudo-science, based on very poor data from very poorly-designed studies.

4. The fact of the matter is that the learned professions are all, in their ways, text-based. No read/write well, no get job as lawyer, doctor, teacher, etc.

5. Of course there are different ways to be intelligent. However, it is a lie to claim that they are all equally valued by our society, or that they are going to be.

6. And another bottom line: in the end, Freud was right. The ability to articulate and to comprehend issues is our hope. Acting them out--in whatever fashion--is not gonna git it.

7. "Diversity," was a great idea. Now, it is a capitalist idea.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

I mentioned Guilford because, despite the claims that this stuff's new, it's actually been kicking around for quite a while.

I mentioned in another post that NLP had nothing new to offer under the sun...just a repackaging of other peoples research and ideas, without credit being given where credits due. Worst abuse of this I've seen? Tony Robbins claiming HE has discovered 6 "laws of Social Influence", then proceeds to teach Robert Cialdini's Social Persuasion Theory regarding effects of implied causation on compliance; bandwagon effects; commitment and consisteny; etc. (all found in Cialdini's books and JPSP articles). Cialdini = well published Soc. Psych prof at Tempe.

At the house of one of the NLP core founders, flipped through his library to find journal articles, position papers, etc., on early information systems theory. Oddly, the books and articles pre-dated the inception of NLP proper, and pre-echoed seminal ideas. To clarify, what they have done is to bring several otherwise competing, but complementary ideas, into one basket. What they failed to do was maintain academic integrity, and cite references. I guess the zeitgeist in the early 70's was one of exclusivity and barriers btw approaches, and eclecticism was deemed heretical. Now, steal ideas and claim them as your own...nobody cares.

It's been clear for quite some time that IQ tests, as well as tools like the MMPI, are culturally loaded, to say the least. I'm simply following out a long line of argument, and adding that the "learning styles," argument is, so far as I'm concerned, just another bourgeois intellectual desperate attempt to legitimate--which in this case means, to render invisible--what class and "race," dopes to the measure of intelligence in this society.

Isn't this a generalization? One of the major logical fallacies presented in Irving Copi's work? If true here, true there, even though no data exists to support it? That doesn't mean it isn't true, or at least has a modicum of truth in it, but not all developments in social science or the humanities are developed to help the man keep the masses down. Generally, aside from gross mistakes in sample selection, much of the research done at the university level in social science and psych are conducted by left-leaning profs, with personal social agendas to support.

I've repeatedly had to sit in seminars and hear people spout this stuff. It's pseudo-science, based on very poor data from very poorly-designed studies.

I'm truly sorry,. Nothing worse in the world then sitting through hours of idiots spewing half-baked ideas through dullard minds. My first exposures to NLP were in these scenarios, and I was about ready to fold the book on a heap-o-crap, when I lucked out to discover there were intradisciplinary, factional differences, and that some actually adopted an academic stance to their research (or, at least, to hijacking others' research for their own purposes). But, unfortunately, most of the mainstream stuff was, is, and will remain, crap. As for the poorly designed studies, much of the late 80's/early and mid-90's material researching visuo-spatial workbench, related SPAM activity, and priming effects on memory lexicons was feuled by "unconscious processing" and sub-modality assertions made in NLP. Subjected to the rigors of the empirical method, peer-reviewed, etc. I'm sure at least some of them managed to get by with more than junk logic and poor design.

Of course there are different ways to be intelligent. However, it is a lie to claim that they are all equally valued by our society, or that they are going to be.

Amen.

And another bottom line: in the end, Freud was right.

Read the colllected works of Freud at 12-14 y/o, and agree whole-heartedly. Most (my guess, 90+%) of people who criticize Freud's works and understandings of the nature of consciousness have never read his works, but only pass on vissictitudes they learned from their J.C. psych 101 profs...who never read Freud either.

"Diversity," was a great idea. Now, it is a capitalist idea.

Best laid plans?

There are true professors in Kenpo, and there are clowns in Kenpo. If someones exposure is to a clown, and they take the position "kenpo guys suck; kenpo is a lousy MA", you, as a Tatum student, know this is not an accurate blanket statement.

So, some college prof has to sit through multiple pseudo-science preso's of NLP, leading him to draw his own conclusions. You do the math. Are all generalizations always accurate?

Respects,

Dave

 

[Maltair]

I also like to sit back and watch a hall full of people sparring, you can learn loads that way. Then people are shocked when you block all their favourite moves and exploit all their weaknesses

Ian.

This is something I would like to learn how to do. I've seen people that have watched someone spar for 1 min, then will stop the match jump in and say watch this, and do just what you said, block all their favourite moves and exploit all their weaknesses

I've been sparring with the same guys for awhile now, and I couldn't even tell you if they start right side back or what. I think it is becuase I've been concintrating on my own moves and not tryng to learn opp moves.

 

[mj-hi-yah]

1. I mentioned Guilford because, despite the claims that this stuff's new, it's actually been kicking around for quite a while. There were responses to the idea that intelligence could be defined as some general, "g," going back into the 19th century; the criticism of the Binet/Stanford-Binet tests have been extant since at least the late 1940s.

I don't completely disagree here. My point is that what was generally accepted 64 years ago does not necessarily hold true today. We’ve made many advances in education.

2. It's been clear for quite some time that IQ tests, as well as tools like the MMPI, are culturally loaded, to say the least. I'm simply following out a long line of argument, and adding that the "learning styles," argument is, so far as I'm concerned, just another bourgeois intellectual desperate attempt to legitimate--which in this case means, to render invisible--what class and "race," dopes to the measure of intelligence in this society.

I could not agree more about IQ, and this is the reason for exploring, teaching to and valuing multiple intelligences. This is not based on IQ, it counters it, and in fact it is the result of the desire to assess students without such bias.

3. I've repeatedly had to sit in seminars and hear people spout this stuff. It's pseudo-science, based on very poor data from very poorly-designed studies.

I understand your skepticism in terms of research as yes you can often find many studies on almost any subject that are faulty, ill designed and slanted to prove a point. I believe that research should be subject to scrutiny. In my graduate studies I examined much of it. There is valid and widely respected research on this subject today.

4. The fact of the matter is that the learned professions are all, in their ways, text-based. No read/write well, no get job as lawyer, doctor, teacher, etc.

No doubt visual learners have an advantage in most school settings, Many educators have visual preferences and will present material in ways that suit their own personal needs, this is mostly due to a lack of understanding concerning learning styles and what they are meant to achieve. Visual learners may do well as doctors, but could also be more suited and be more fulfilled working as graphic artists, or with computers. It is the auditory learner who is more suited to a profession in law because of their need to verbalize and the tactual learner who may excel in psychology, because they are intuitive to how people feel and learn through feeling. Understanding our learning styles can help us to compensate for learning that does not suit our needs, and in addition it can help us to recognize our strengths and weaknesses and work to develop them both.

5. Of course there are different ways to be intelligent. However, it is a lie to claim that they are all equally valued by our society, or that they are going to be.

Define value. Is it based on how much money a person makes or what they contribute to society? Remember a purely kinesthetic learner is only 5% of the population. Their unique skills and abilities make them suited for the highest paying jobs in our society today. They are the professional athletes and their salaries far exceed those in the “learned professions.”It’s undeniable, for example, Alonzo Mourning signed with the Miami Heat for a seven year deal worth about $112 million and the President of the United States makes $400,000 a year. Which do you think is more valued? The professional athlete’s salary is not paralleled in the “professional world”.There is a reason we have amazing people achieving great things and/or becoming quite successful in other professions such as Martial Arts, acting and sports.

6. And another bottom line: in the end, Freud was right. The ability to articulate and to comprehend issues is our hope. Acting them out--in whatever fashion--is not gonna git it.

LOL I love my :angel:mother. I’ll leave this one to the psychologists to hash out…



MJ :asian:

 

[rmcrobertson]

Read through all of Freud--all thirty-plus volumes of the collected works--at 12 or 14 years of age? Hm. Remarkable.

"Left-leaning professors?" Hm. Remarkable. I couldn't tell you what the politics were of my profs in lab and experimental psychology. I quite agree that a lot of the "diversity," jazz is driven by folks who claim to have a liberal social agenda--but my point was that this "liberal," agenda is in fact simply another example of capitalism shifting to new markets.

All--I repeat, ALL--of the currently-popular stuff I've seen that relates "better," understandings of the brain to specific ways of teaching remains well in advance of the actual science. Of course, there are some good things coming out--but by and large, the "research," featured in departments of education is laughable.

In part, it's often--not always, but often--laughable because it's simply badly-designed experiment rigged in support of particular agendas. Some of these are, "liberal," such as the stuff about diversity. Many of the agendas, though, are fundamentally corporatist--note all the jazz about, "more-efficient," teaching.

Curiously enough, NONE of this stuff is being deployed at the elite schools. It's the proles who get the NLP, the, "kinesthetic learner," material, etc. Hm.

And what's wrong with it? Look at the post below: so-and-so would be better off as a lawyer, so-and-so as this, so-and-so as that. Such claims are based on very iffy science...and, they feed precisely into the silly, dangerous fascination with "scientific," and, "objective," testing that's driving so much of K-12 education these days.

I agree with a lot of the last two poster's claims, as well as their general approaches. However, I'm afraid I ain't buying the NLP, the latest in a long chain of American schemes for taylorizing the long slow, difficult process of education. Nor am I going with the testing sorcery.

Why not just fund the damn educational system decently, give teachers decent training, set up society so that kids have a chance to learn, and let the chips fall? I'd thought that was the American way....

But as in martial arts, the Big Secret is this: there are no shortcuts.

 

[mj-hi-yah]

Read through all of Freud--all thirty-plus volumes of the collected works--at 12 or 14 years of age? Hm. Remarkable.

I've taken more than my fair share of psychology courses. I am well aware of the Oedipus/Electra complex. Freud is certainly interesting, and he has made many valuable contributions. I just don't believe in blaming the parents for all that goes wrong in a person's adult life. :asian:

"Left-leaning professors?" Hm. Remarkable. I couldn't tell you what the politics were of my profs in lab and experimental psychology. I quite agree that a lot of the "diversity," jazz is driven by folks who claim to have a liberal social agenda--but my point was that this "liberal," agenda is in fact simply another example of capitalism shifting to new markets.

This seems like a generalization here. Jazz may or may not attract people who are liberal in their political affiliations. However, I agree that there are special interest groups who sometimes drive research to protect their interests in all areas environmental, educational etc., I don't see a connection between understanding how we learn best and politics though. I think despite anyone's political agenda they can benefit from understanding their own learning needs.

All--I repeat, ALL--of the currently-popular stuff I've seen that relates "better," understandings of the brain to specific ways of teaching remains well in advance of the actual science. Of course, there are some good things coming out--but by and large, the "research," featured in departments of education is laughable.

All is too broad for me to agree on - some certainly is and some isn't.

Curiously enough, NONE of this stuff is being deployed at the elite schools. It's the proles who get the NLP, the, "kinesthetic learner," material, etc. Hm.

I would say progressive elitist schools are working in this direction, such as The Ross School of East Hamptom on Long Island.

And what's wrong with it? Look at the post below: so-and-so would be better off as a lawyer, so-and-so as this, so-and-so as that. Such claims are based on very iffy science...and, they feed precisely into the silly, dangerous fascination with "scientific," and, "objective," testing that's driving so much of K-12 education these days.

Not really better off more a way to help students find things that they might enjoy doing in life because it suits their way of learning and being. Jim Carey is a known kinesthetic learner and is all about movement. He might have become a doctor if that's what he desired, but he might have had to work extra hard to learn in ways that didn't suit his perceptual strengths though. Being a physical actor more closely matches his natural abilities and talents. It suits him the same as writing suits you.

I agree with a lot of the last two poster's claims, as well as their general approaches.

Why not just fund the damn educational system decently, give teachers decent training, set up society so that kids have a chance to learn, and let the chips fall? I'd thought that was the American way....

Agreed, that the government needs to value education more through funding.

But as in martial arts, the Big Secret is this: there are no shortcuts.

I don't see that as being a secret in education either. I believe in having clearly defined high expectations for children's learning. I just think the more we know about how we learn the better.

MJ :asian:

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, jes' to keep the ball bouncin'...

First off, if you think Freud claimed that your parents were at fault for everything that happens to you, or that you do in later life, you not only haven't read the collected works, you haven't read very much Freud at all.

Second, I'd love to see the, "scientific," basis for this enormous shift in teaching methods. Because the bases I've seen so far, well, "junk science," is the first term that comes to mind..."Jim Carey is a well-known kinesthetic learner?" Are we taking his word for this? Let me also make my point explicit: the elite schools and research universities won't be doing this stuff. They will be passing on knowledge, taught in pretty much the same old same old, and it will help reinforce the way this country gives poor and working class students and more and more impoverished education.

It's fashionable claptrap, mostly, taught in ed schools that all too often are primary sources of what exactly is wrong with the ed system....fer cryin' out loud, these are the folks who get PhDs in, "Educational Leadership," and end up in positions of authority in schools without ever having taught, or studied anything other than educational leadership.

As for the silly comment about having a 180 IQ (as IF) and being "Caucasian," well--in the unlikely event that this actually was the writer's tested score--if anything proves the worthlessness of IQ testing, suggests the way that intelligence indeed has many different facets, and underscores why ideas like, "multiculturalism," are so important, that post does.

What you're really talking about is the adaptation of the educational system to the needs of the contemporary marketplace. This has very little to do with "education," as such---and a great deal to do with justifying what the market wants.

 

[mj-hi-yah]

First off, if you think Freud claimed that your parents were at fault for everything that happens to you, or that you do in later life, you not only haven't read the collected works, you haven't read very much Freud at all.

Oh gosh sorry, that was meant as more of a joke, I guess it didn't translate well... :lookie: Freudian slip? :uhyeah: (uh...that's a joke too)

....fer cryin' out loud, these are the folks who get PhDs in, "Educational Leadership," and end up in positions of authority in schools without ever having taught, or studied anything other than educational leadership.

Ok well this here explains a lot about our differing opinions and the futility of this discussion. I happen to respect the work and contribution of people with PhDs in Educational Leadership.

I'll pick up this ball again if anyone is interested in the implications of different learning styles in the dojo...

 

[rmcrobertson]

Like who, exactly? An example or two, please.

The fundamental problem is this: the claim that there are, "different learning styles," cannot be taken for granted. The scientific evidence is shaky at best, the current fad is not to be trusted, and then the whole claim has some unpleasant social implications.

It's an old idea, and perhaps a useful guide. But in martial arts, why not just worry about responding to different students differently? Why demand "scientific," explanations, well in advance of actual science, simply to do that?

I don't feel qualified to pass these judgments about students, and I have the degrees and the teaching experience. So....

 

[mj-hi-yah]

Like who, exactly? An example or two, please.

I'm sorry Robert, huuuuh....but this is getting draining don't you agree? I don't really like sparring outside of the dojo. I came here to share information not defend the entire educational system. If I had to name two important ones to me I'd say Gardner and Bloom. I like the publication Educational Leadership, mostly because they promote scrutiny of research. For the most part though I just really respect people who further their learning. To me a PhD is a symbol of someone who has made a commitment to their field of study and spent a lot of time and energy on their subject matter. That in my mind does qualify a person to be eligible leaders in their field.

The fundamental problem is this: the claim that there are, "different learning styles," cannot be taken for granted. The scientific evidence is shaky at best, the current fad is not to be trusted, and then the whole claim has some unpleasant social implications.

Do you know how you learn best Robert? When you get directions to go somewhere do you write them down or need to look at a map, or highlight the map, or can you just listen to someone telling you how to get there and remember it? This is about helping people understand their own needs and meeting them. It's not that complicated. I see no negative social implications for knowing this about ourselves. I see it as useful to us as learners. In Kenpo there is much to learn and remember. It's a personal tool to aid in that and that is all.

It's an old idea, and perhaps a useful guide. But in martial arts, why not just worry about responding to different students differently? Why demand "scientific," explanations, well in advance of actual science, simply to do that?

Respond differently how? You really need at least some sort of framework for that.

I don't feel qualified to pass these judgments about students, and I have the degrees and the teaching experience. So....

You really need not pass judgment on anyone with this. This is simply about helping people to learn more effectively.

 

[Kenpomachine]

NONE of this stuff is being deployed at the elite schools. It's the proles who get the NLP, the, "kinesthetic learner," material, etc. Hm.

I'm a kinesthetic learner and I know there are many resorts to learn in an otherwise seemingly visual learner world. I.e., when I couldn't attend a class, I would copy the notes of a friend to get the material down, even if I had it xeroxed. Or I'll write down notes of my own before an exam. I didn't remember the teacher lecturing or what I read, but the material I wrote. And I hate it when everybody wanted dates and numbers, and names.

Most of the comments disregarding a style of learning come not from the way of learning, but of the way of treating people. If you talk to someone as if he/she were stupid for a long time, or you lower your expectations towards him/her, regular folks lower their expectations as well.

I see it more as a problem of attitude than a problem of learning style. By the way, I believe that we wouldn't have so many educational problems if we gave children a set of known rules to stick too, so they know there are limits. And that damage has been made by pedagoges... at least in Spain.

First thing a kid'll do when you enter a class, both at school and in the MA for the first time? Look for the limits.

FWIW, I hold a degree in Agricultural Eng, and an MSc in Marketing.

 

[Michael Billings]

I don't think you should have to defend your stance by citing your Ejukatunal degrees. Life experience, 20 years in the military may well substitute for a degree in Learning Theory ... or not. We should neither have to justify our qualifications to express an opinion, nor should you assume that your "degree" qualifies you singularly as the "authority' on this.

I accept, that in Robert's experience, given his vocation and passion - appropriate weight could be given to his position. Likewise mj-hi-yah or Kenpomachine's experience carries weight based on their life experiences, as does mine.

It is the whole "sparring" outside the dojo remark that brings this to a head for me. This thread is however, How WE learn and teach. "It does not make my line longer, by cutting another's short."

-Michael

 

[mj-hi-yah]

Michael,

This is also my profession and I have Post-Masters' studies in education and I too am passionate about it all. I sincerely apologize if that remark upset you or anyone else reading this thread. If you read through this entire thread you will note that there has been some sarcasm in previous posts and my remark was meant honestly to convey the fact that I do not intend to argue or reduce myself to those tactics.


I voluntarily withdraw my participation from this thread.



MJ :asian:

 

[Michael Billings]

mj-hi-ya, see my PM to you.

-Michael

 

[rmcrobertson]

I'd still be interested to know exactly how one "knows," that a student is a "kinesthetic learner."

I also find it curious that it seems so difficult to cite research in the field--yes, I'm familiar enough with Gardner--especially by anybody with a degree in, "educational leadership," which is a purely administrative specialization. So far, everybody I've met or read with such a PhD is, in my professional opinion, a phony. But of course there may be exceptions, but these are--believe me--not predicated merely upon having a doctorate.

I haven't been sarcastic. I've been extremely skeptical.

 

[Kenpomachine]

You only need to observe your student. In a martial arts class it's easier, as there's less people and you usually interact more with the students. In a lecture setting, as a class at university, you won't know until the student tells you. Well, most of the people that don't go to classes and later study by just reading the material are visual learners.

By the way, I cited my educational background because Robert seemed to be stating that kinesthetic learners have it almost impossible to get a degree in an environment set for visual learners.

It hasn't to do with the style of learning, but the internal resources one have.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Sorry...my computer has been down.

Robert -- Yes. The collected works. My lifetime experience with reading excellent works and the educational system started long before university level. At the tender age of 4, I was recommended for assessment of potential learning disabilities, and possible "slow development". Turns out, according to the psychiatrist, I was bored. I was one of those kids who had taken apart then rebuilt the stereo, TV, lawnmower, etc., by the time I hit my 3rd birthday, but I couldn't sit still to attend to a Sesame Street episode to save my life.

School starts, and the story worsens. They start me in mainstream classes, where I fail miserably. Before they can plop me in special ed (or justify keeping me there after pre-plopping me), I have to be subjected to a battery of psych & IQ tests (I got really good at them, eventually, just via the practice effect..started scoring off the charts on the WISC, so they had to switch me to the WAIS in my very early teens). Results of the tests indicated I belonged in MGM (don;t know what they call it now, but back then it was the acronym for over-achieving smart kids). In MGM, they wanted to expose me early to high school and college learning materials...like math (which I hate to this day), history (I never cared a rats petootie about how many guys signed a piece of paper 200 years earlier), and so on. Bored, I'd set my head on the table & nap 'till class was over, so I could go home and do what I wanted to do...oddly enough, that was READ!

My favorite topics were psychology, philosophy (classic thinker texts about the meaning of life, not the Boolean math-like stuff), and so on. Meanwhile, I'm flunking out of MGM, being dropped "down" to the mainstream classes, flunkingout of them, and being placed in the special ed classes...where the whole thing starts all over again.

For a 4th Grade English book report, I read Hunchback of Notre Dame...not the Cliff notes or disney versions, but the thick one with big words. My 4th Grade English teacher also insinuated I was a liar (as you did in your previous post about Freud)...tried to get me suspended for lying...problem was, my Pops...a Masters in Math and PhD in Nuclear Physics...was reading his stuff next to me and helping me unpackage context pieces I didn't get. How? I didn;t know anything about heirarchy in the Catholic church, or it's place in the History of France. He'd make me put down Hunchback, and read some texts and non-fictions he'd find on the topic, THEN I could return to Hunchback. Kinda took the teacher back to have Dad say, "He's not lying...I was there; I helped...I taught him how to read by three". (they didn't have phonics then, but they did have Seuss)

Works of Freud, because at the time my Dad was heavily reearching the fathers of Psych for a play he was working on in his spare time...in which Young Freud, Jung, Rank, & Adler are shades stepping out from behind items in a Train station while Old Freud is waiting to leave occupied Vienna, levelling their accusations and differences at Freud, while he defends himself in thought. Got so taken with the idea of mind as malleable construct, that I read every book he picked up for his research...the collected works of Freud, Jung, Rank, and Adler, as well as supplementary works by disciples of these thinkers aimed at elaborating or clarifying theoretical positions (i.e., Progoff, etc.). Did I count the volumes? No (too much like math...remember, I hate math). But my fathers study had three sets of shelves, each 8 feet long and 5 shelves high, covered with books on 3 things: Psych fathers and history of psych, philosophy (per my request...some classics), and screenwriting (his gig). Read all but the screenwriting, and still have some of my favorite works by Jung, leftover from the early days of this particular obsession. (Later switched to Eastern religious studies...both the hippie crap that was out, as well as the cultural classics...but I'm sure you'll insinuate I'm lying about that, too)

If it interests me, I can blow through about a book a day (2 if it's a long book). If I'm not interested, it can take me weeks to get through 1 page of stuff I gotta know for an upcoming exam.

Meanwhile, I just barely avoided flunking out of high school. Then hit college to get straight A's (go figure...I got to choose the classes, mostly). Those classes included L&M, Psych Testing, etc...so I am familiar with your criticisms of standardizations of tests, and the lack of sound theory supporting them.

I do not personally believe a decent learning style diagnostic tool exists...primarily because a clear and well-examined theory does not exist. And applications of trait theory, extrapolated to social applications, have always failed miserably (have you ever seen the Strongs/Campbell (sp) type ever place someone happily? Ever seen a longitudinal study evaluating the predictive validity of these inventories with career placement outcomes?).

This is precisely why the infamous Scientist/Practitioner model was adopted for psych some many years back (can't tell you how many...that would be math). The unfolding and evolving state of the evidentiary research data (evidence, because as you know, there is never definitive proof or law in psych...not even in strict behavioral methodologies...Skinner and his tangable empiricism ended up in the basement, because of Chomsky's intangible position that trial and error could not, alone, account for the rapid acquisition of language skills...mathematically) is to be embraced as a supportive mechanism, correlated with the clinical observations of the practicing shrink. Clinical eval alone is insufficient, and needs the rigors of science to seperate viable diagnostic and treatment regimens from silly fluff. Empirical rigors alone only prove that, given the controlled conditions A, B and C, some variable X will influence the outcome of some other variable Y within a certain level of statistical predictability. Takes both to be a good doctor.

You embrace and teach kenpo. Last I looked, there was no study taking 999 subjects, and randomly dividing them into 3rds...teaching one group kenpo defenses against 3 specific attacks, teaching the other group defenses against the same 3 attacks (but the techs they learn are from, let's say arbitrarily, a mish-mosh of the top 5 systems other than kenpo, based on gross national reciepts of school membership...wait, I feel a findings and recommendations piece coming on for the end of the discussion), and leaving the final 3rd to their own destinies. Then we'll sick some buncha mooks after these subjects, attacking with only one of the 3 pre-designated attacks. Next, we'll do an analysis to see if A) the kenpo group did any better overall (based on number of injuries sustained by the attackers?); B) if they did better on some attacks and not others (individual differences, or poor systemic design on the part of EPAK?); and so on.

Such a study ain't out there, and yet kenpo PRACTITIONERS continue to lay claim to teaching a scientifically based system. Meanwhile, no one has bothered to sit down with the people who, academically, do know about bodies in motion to reflect and/or modify kenpo moves and basics to ensure their internal validity with the body of research evidence, as it exists to date. Anybody here a PhD in Biomechanics? Kino? There are volumes of studies and dissertations out on the complex mechanics of gait, alone, ...how much do you suppose would have to go into a true, scientifically-researched study of even one yellow belt technique? Kenpo is based on clinical observations, not science, yet is embraced as valid. As you said earlier, hm.

Skepticism is a great tool, but like all tools, has it's own limitations in extremes. To be a proper skeptic, you must doubt if the sidewalk under your next footstep is going to cave in to a sinkhole 30 feet down. Sure, your subjective experience tells you, "hasn't happened before; not likely to happen now", but that's not based on sound empirical research data, culled from multiple controlled experiments, is it? The posibility exists, but the null hypothesis has not been ruled out in the rigors of research, so you really take your fate in your own hands by trusting in that dangerous walk way. A good skeptic would be concerned about such things, to the point of paraslysis. (healthy skepticism vs. silly fluff, just for noises sake?)

Nonsense, eh? Yet, after a spell, it all starts sounding alike...just the face or name are different. Still nonsense.

The scientific model is not even embraced by all scientists or ivy-league academics, many with greater insight, education and experience than you or I. None of this will prevent my clinical, subjective self from enjoying an ice cream (which could, in the untested realm of possibility, explode in my face...until proven otherwise) while I stroll down the sidewalk (and we know how dangerous that can be).

Someone once asked me, "How do we combat ignorance?". I replied that we cannot. We can only provide information and opportunity...it is up to each individual to choose what they will do with it.

D.

PS -- Theories exist, generally, in advance of the research that supports or undermines them. Many turn out to be correct, at some level. Were they wholly incorrect before the research was conducted? Additionally, applications exists without objective understanding of the mechanisms supporting them. Does that make them less effective? The specific mechanism of action of aspirin wasn't understood until very recently (compared to how long it's been in use). Does that mean it never helped a headache in all the years prior? Again, silly nonsense.

 

[Rainman]

Someone once asked me, "How do we combat ignorance?". I replied that we cannot. We can only provide information and opportunity...it is up to each individual to choose what they will do with it.

That was good. Someone may only be willing to open the door and it is up to whoever to research the information in full or part and then ask questions. Very few do that- man you are coming up with some good stuff lately. Let me ask you this: How complete is your Kenpo becoming? And do you now feel the need to supplement it with another martial art?