h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The method of teaching is critical to the understanding of a subject. When I was at primary school I used to do really badly in spelling tests. We had to learn how to spell 20 words each week and I found it really difficult to memorise them. It was only when I started learning French at secondary school and noticed how similar a lot of the words are that I started looking at the roots of words from Latin and Greek (mainly but many others also) that I actually worked out how it all worked. From then on it was easy. You'll probably still be able to spot spelling mistakes in this post though!

In mathematics we had to learn our times tables, I also found this just as hard but quickly spotted that by keeping a good rhythm when reciting them, you could work it out on the fly by simple addition. This means that I now have a gaping hole in my memory where most people have their times tables and consequently find mental multiplication and division very tricky...

I disagree. The method of _learning_ is the crucial key to understanding.

There are 7(ish) different types of learner - everbody falls into at least one group:

Social (those who learn best from group work)
Independent (those who learn best from solo study)
Literal (those who learn best by reading & writing)
Numerate (those who learn best by calculation and logic)
Visual (those who learn best through diagrams and observation)
Kinaesthetic (those who learn best by getting up and doing)
Musical (those who learn best through rhythm and song)

Some get added to the list every now and then, depending on the whims of the researcher. I have a quiz whereby you can find out your learning type if you're interested.

The practical upshot is that it is impossible to simultaneously teach to students with a range of learning styles - pupils are now encouraged to find out what works for them and adapt to it.

B

I disagree with Master B there... learning somthing parrot fashion is all well and good, but once you understand, for example, the way language is constructed, you can then use that understanding to derive spellings, grammar, etc.

A good analogue is general/special rules in physics and maths. If I know a rule for a specific case, I'm ok when I'm faced with that case, but if I understand the whole system generally, when it changes I can decide what affect that change will have.

If I know my 3 times tables, fine, but if I know that 4 x 3 is equivalent to 4 sets of 3 of somthing, then I can work out 6 x 7, because I know it's 7 + 7 + 7 + 7 + 7. I understand the principle of multiplication as opposed to knowing that 4 x 3 = 12.

Heh heh, only 5 times 7 there. Silly fool.

At no point did I say that learning parrot-fashion was a good idea.

All you have proved with your post is that you are a Numerate Learner. Research into learning this days goes far beyond simply repetition and revision.

B

Give us yer quiz then! I cant guess what sort of learner I'd be...

I'll stick it on my website pronto:

http://www.freewebs.com/ousgg

B

Ah. It's an Excel file.

Will find some time during my hectic work schedule to do it next week.

Actually, as a guess, I'll probably be numerate, I'm always trying to reduce things to formulae. And I'd reckon I'm not a group learner.

Cheers mate

Ref Mater B's Post 2, knowing your learning style can be quite beneficial.

Some pupils, when they don't understand something, will put up therir hand and say something like, " I don't quite understand that. Could you explain it in another way because I'm an (e.g. audio, visual or kinaesthetic) learner. If a teacher is aware of the range of learning styles present in the class (s)he's teaching, then (s) he can design the lesson accordingly.

Sometimes, in the early stages it is worth learning things 'by wrote' e.g. by using mnemonics (see my Entry on 'Categorised Mnemics' at A2786321. I recall reading somewhere that mnemonics are like scaffolding which can just fall away once the subject matter has been mastered.

I always remember trying to cheat in exams by writing e.g. formulae in very small writing wherever they wouldn't be noticed by invigilators. However, I found that the very act of writing these out in this way caused me to memorise the formulae anytway, and so I didn't need to do the cheating.

I'm actually opposed to the Multiple Intelligences (as it is known in the profession) model:

1) It is impractical to teach a class of 30 who all have different learning styles.

2) It is equally impractical to divide a class of 30 into learning styles and let them all simultaneously do it their way.

3) It is a convenient opportunity for the average pupil to claim that he can't learn what you are teaching.

4) The emphasis must be on the student to adapt to their style of learning. This requires extra work, which is unlikely to be appreciated by the average 14 year old.

Fine (and accurate) in theory; not great in the typical classroom.

B

It's a bit easier in my subject - chemistry. This is naturally a kinaesthetic subject (pupils doing practical work). Teacher input can be a combination of oral (Audio) and Visual (boardwork). Evem more Visual if a pupil doen't understand and one has to devise a new 'model' perhaps to draw to the board.

I think knowledge of Learning Style can inform the teaching if one knows that most pupils in the class are either V, or A, or K type learners. i.e. If the majority are Visual Learners, then one would minimise talking at/to them during the Teacher Input phase, but would hope to present the material in a more Visual form.

I think teachers have a much more difficult job to do nowadays than they did when I was a pupil. Nowadays they do actively have to TEACH, and also actively monitor every pupils LEARNING. When I was a pupil it was not unusual for a teacher to fill the whole board with dense writing which we just had to copy down before the end of the lesson. There was a minimum of explanation and, in general, teachers did not check on what the pupils had actually learned.

P.S. about the spelling mistake I've just noticed in my Post 9. 'wrote' should be 'rote'. I'n not really illiterate. Promise!

"It's a bit easier in my subject - chemistry"

I might accept that if it weren't my subject too.

B