In “Reaching the Second Tier,”an assigned reading for my online class at college on how to teach better, I liked the questions for a student’s learning style much better than the Barsch Learning Styles test.
Barsch said that I was 26 in visual, 22 in verbal, and 16 in kinetic. I don’t do squat in kinetic. And I only got a high visual score because they included reading as visual rather than verbal.
In Felder’s learning styles, sensory v. intuitive is a category I know already from Myers-Briggs. I have found it makes a huge difference in my life. If someone is intuitive, I have a much easier time talking to them, understanding them, and getting along with them.
I wonder if that means that sensers have a hard time in my classes. Maybe. Although my students have to do a lot of writing, which is definitely sensory.
Then these questions seemed to include writing and reading in verbal (or auditory) rather than visual. I am not a visual learner. I know that, because my husband is a visual learner. He can see something and understand it. I have to read about it or discuss it to get it.
I also liked the question of deductive and inductive learning. I am definitely an inductive person and had a lot of trouble with my PhD work because it was deductive, or theory driven. They discussed the theories and then left you to figure out how it would work out. I hated that because half the time I thought the theories couldn’t work out because they began with a faulty premise.
I also liked the actively or reflectively learning question. I am not as sure on that one where I stand. I know that I do get a lot out of discussions, but I also like time to think. Maybe that is because I am not always a quick thinker. I can’t see the holes without thinking about it for a while. I’ll know there is something “off” in a discussion, but not be able to identify it.
I guess that’s why I like continuity in discussions.
This was an interesting paper, which is found on NCSU’s site.