The Learning Styles Myth (auditory, visual, kinesthetic, verbal, etc.)

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #847490
    .
    Participant

    I just thought I’d put this out there since repeatedly on this forum people say you should study for the CPA exam according to your own individual “learning style”. Apparently, this is an urban myth/pop psychology that something like 90% of people believe but has been discredited by researchers. I also thought this was interesting:

    What’s more, even if we accept a particular scheme for measuring learning styles, evidence shows that learning style questionnaires are unreliable and people’s self-reported preferences are poorly correlated with their actual performance. In other words, a person might think they learn better, say, visually rather than verbally, but their performance says otherwise! The fact is, the more accurate predictor for how well a person will fare in a math learning task, is most likely not the degree of match between their preferred learning style and the teaching style, but their past performance on math tests.

    Article

    Article 2

    Ted Talk

    FAR- 88- 6/16- (Ninja Avg. 74%)
    REG- 89- 7/16- (Ninja Avg. 77%)
    AUD- 95- 8/16- (Ninja Avg. 81%)
    BEC- 82- 9/16- (Ninja Avg. 75%)
    [Wiley CPAExcel + Ninja MCQ]

    Finally licensed.

    FAR - June 2016 - 88
    REG - July 2016 - 89
    AUD - Aug 2016 - review phase currently
    BEC - Sep 2016 -

    Wiley CPA Excel & Ninja MCQ

Viewing 3 replies - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #848007
    jeff
    Keymaster

    This post got hung up in spam because of the 3 links

    AUD - 79
    BEC - 80
    FAR - 76
    REG - 92
    Jeff Elliott, CPA (KS)
    NINJA CPA | NINJA CMA | NINJA CPE | Another71
    #848055
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I think most people on here referencing learning according to their best learning style aren't meaning the “learning styles”, but each individual's way of learning. Some people learn well by scrutinizing every detail; others learn well by seeing the big picture; etc. That's more what I mean when I reference “learning style”.

    As for the official “learning styles”, I've always thought that everyone has some of all of them, though some people might prefer one or the other. I see them kind of like the whole “love languages” thing – I don't think that some people only feel loved when you spend money on them or when you spend time with them etc., but people feel loved when they receive what they're most missing at that time. So, the learning that's the most “ohhhh I get it now” is what you're most lacking in understanding the concept. For me, I learn best from reading books, cause I was homeschooled aka have learned from books since I learned to read and haven't had a teacher except for about 2 years total (1.5 years of face-to-face college and a couple courses during highschool, less than 1/2 year of college total), not because books have a magical interaction with my mind. lol. But when I take those “learning style” quizzes, I get like 44% for one, 42% for another, 35% for the next, and 30% for the last. So…always very mixed. 😐

    Also, I think that people's preference for a “learning style” is more pronounced at younger ages and as people mature they need to utilize more methods to get full learning. So, someone who used to be able to learn by reading only (like me), as they get a bit older will need to add in more learning methods (which I'm starting to need to do).

    EDIT: I don't find “Wired” to be a credible source, nor did it really cite anything to back itself up, so I scanned it but didn't look further. I did, though, read through most of the journal article portion about this. (And didn't listen to the TED Talk, yet, cause I'm listening to a different presentation on YouTube.) It seems to say that the categories aren't specific/exclusive (same as any categorization of people – humans don't fit in boxes well) and that there's no need to teach to these classifications, but that's not the same as saying that these learning styles don't exist or that there's no benefit to being aware of them. People learn by seeing, by doing, by hearing, etc. People need to realize that they don't learn by one only, so shouldn't say “Oh, I only learn by doing, so if I can't go observe inventory, there's no reason for me to read about observing inventory”. But, people can say “I learn well by doing, so working problems is going to be better for me than reading through examples that are already worked out”. At the same time, someone who learns well by reading shouldn't say “I learn by reading, I can just read examples and not work out any problems”, cause people learn by all methods, so they need to work out examples, too.

    I think what the Wired article overlooks entirely is that even though learners aren't always the best judge of how they learn best, they can know how they don't learn at all. And what Wired and the journal article both overlook is that while teachers can't cater to each unique combination of learning methods, it can make a huge difference in how well someone learns something to have something explained in a way they understand. YOu can see this with all the threads on here where someone says “Becker/Roger/Wiley/NINJA/etc. says __________. I don't get it. What are they saying?” and someone else says the same thing but says it different and they go “Ohhhh I get it now!” People need to learn in the way they can learn. They might not always know what this is, but they do often know what it *isn't*. For CPA exam studiers, don't buy a now $3000 review course every time you think it doesn't match your best learning, but do look for something else when you know it matches your not-learning. Cause…you do know when you're not learning.

    Also…you can find claims of anything on the internet. This journal article looks like someone with a chip on their shoulder. A lot of what they say has a lot of basis to it, but they write like someone with a chip on their shoulder. 😐

    #848057
    Duskfall
    Participant

    I don't have a learning style, I know that. I have to use all of it: lectures, text, multiple choice, SIMS, notes, audio and flashcards. I have to keep hammering all of them until everything starts clicking. If I focus only on MCQ, I don't make progress. I have no idea when or why it all starts clicking, or what exact area of the studying did it because it's different every time.

    Glad to know I'm not weird because of it LOL!

    • FAR - 81 - JUN 7th, 2016
    • BEC - 85 - AUG 23rd, 2016
    • AUD- 80 - OCT 5th, 2016
    • REG- 77 - DEC 2nd, 2016

     

    FAR - 07/07/2016 - 81
    BEC - 08/23/2016
    AUD - 10/05/2016
    REG - 11/23/2016

Viewing 3 replies - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.