Re: [Phys-l] differentiated instruction

[Jack Uretsky <jlu@hep.anl.gov>]

Let's put all this in context.  What you have to accept, as I understand 
it, that gains on certain tests measure, in some sense, teaching 
effectiveness.  Such a conclusion transcends common sense.  American 
education, which varies greatly from locale to locale, has produced a 
number of eminent scientists who were taught by traditional methods.
	The conclusion further obscures the fact that the ultimate 
reponsibility for learning resides in the student.  And, yes, there are 
differences in learning ability - students do in fact range from bright to 
dull.  These facts, not taken into account in the use of tests to measure 
teaching effectiveness - and don't forget the personality of the teacher 
as a possible factor that needs to be taken into account - makes so-called 
PER approaches an abuse of the term "research" because it involves the use 
of numerical measures with totally unknown systematic uncertainties.

"Trust me.  I have a lot of experience at this."
		General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
		just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley




On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, M. Horton wrote:

> It's hard to prove that something is not research-based except to point out
> a lack of research.
>
> In this case, however, there have been several reports published recently
> that the idea of learning styles is not supported by cognitive psychology or
> any other branch of science for that matter.  This website has a video from
> a cognitive scientist who addresses this question directly.  His arguments
> make a lot of sense.  Considering that his arguments make sense and there is
> a lack of evidence supporting the opposite idea, that should be pretty
> convincing.
> http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2009/03/learning_styles_true_or_false.html?qs=learning+styles
>
> This is not to say that ideas should not be taught a variety of ways.  There
> is research saying that multiple exposures to information presented in a
> variety of formats enhances learning, but it has nothing to do with learning
> styles.
>
> I receive the ASCD SmartBrief email everyday and it had an article saying
> virtually the same thing as the video within the last week.  Unfortunately,
> I didn't think I'd ever need it again and deleted it.
>
> M. Horton
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <trappe@physics.utexas.edu>
> To: "Forum for Physics Educators" <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 11:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [Phys-l] differentiated instruction
>
>
> I, too am curious about the statement:  "non-research-based
> idea of learning styles".  Do you have more specific evidence that
> these definitions are non-research based?
>
> Having sat through too many workshops on learning styles, I wonder if
> these definitions are largely dreamed up terms, or actually researched
> definitions of specific behaviors.  Generally the workshops define the
> different styles "with authority", but that leaves much to question...
>  So, what is the basis of Horton's statement? Karl
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l