Ann — Ouch! Hadn’t intended to poke anyone in the eye, but I’m game to stir the pot. And I agree that less experienced learners usually need more expert instruction (which isn’t to say the exchange shouldn’t be as interactive as possible) than those more experienced, who gain more from open conversation and exchange with peers when problem-solving. Even so, we can all learn something from someone outside of our field of expertise, as I’m sure you agree.

James — Thanks for your post, and welcome to aLearning! I’m certainly no expert on crowdsourcing, but I’d venture to say that these are probably examples of one form of it. Crowdsourcing has generally referred to calling on the minds of many for problem-solving and innovation. Here’s another example: if you’re on LinkedIn — a social network site primarily for professionals — you could post a question such as, “Our organization is faced with picking one tee shirt from thousands; people vote, but we’re not sure how to keep one person from voting over and over for their own shirt. Any ideas on how to resolve this?” Then you’re drawing on the wisdom of the crowd for suggestions. Better yet, see the book: Crowdsourcing: Why the Power of the Crowd Is Driving the Future of Business, by Jeff Howe.

Thanks for poking us in the eye with a sharp stick! It’s a bracing way to launch 2009.

Let me add to the mix that no learning occurs without attention. The overblown learning style idealogy all boils down to simply acknowledging barriers to learning, preferences that enhance the process.

Many associations sell education products to those entering a field, distilling the critical lessons learned to master a subject or process, perfect for elearning applications.

The rest of us focus on the other half of the equation–engaging practicing professionals to exchange ideas and determine what’s working. When you strip away pretense and power from annointed subject experts, learners are the teachers and that makes the association collective relevant.

Sure, crowdsourcing is not how you learn to perform open heart surgery, but it is well suited to diagnosis, problem-solving and handicapping markets.

Keep stirring the pot!

Cheers
Ann

Original Challenge:
http://www.willatworklearning.com/2006/08/learning_styles.html

One-Year Update:
http://www.willatworklearning.com/2007/08/learning-styles.html

The difference between us and those who ascribe to the concept of learning theory is that they believe that training sessions need to be designed so that those who are “visual” learners are shown things; those who are “auditory” learners can hear things, etc. (see pages 51 and 52 in Tracey & Edwards’ Core Competencies in Association Professional Development as an example; note that earlier in the book the authors focus on the need to deliver training based on content, rather than learning preference, so it’s unclear — other than conventional thinking — why more attention is giving to learning styles later).

My rant advocates thinking twice about blindly accepting the theory as law, because doing so can create more harm and confusion than effective learning. The very notion of learning styles is what led to including audio narration, images, and on-screen text in elearning courses. Dr. Ruth Clark would tell you that’s cognitive overload. Also a bad thing.

So how do we get it right? We consider what the learning outcomes need to be, and figure out how to get from here to there. In considering your son’s dyslexia, educators will present content to him in ways that he can absorb it. But that doesn’t mean his preferred learning style is necessarily kinesthetic — it might be in some learning situations, while he might “prefer” auditory learning in others.

Your questions are what I was hoping to see after this post. Thank you for adding to the conversation!

I have a dyslexic child who learns very differently than other kids. I expect his school to accomodate his disability – that will make a HUGE difference in his ability to learn. I would not expect an association workshop session to accomodate his needs, though.

Associations communicate with their audiences in a manner they feel will be most effective for the largest number of people.

Association education is usually brief, intermittent, and informally structured. Attendees often seek information they can utilize in their day-to-day work. In my experience, they favor practical tips, visuals, and, when appropriate, hands-on learning opportunities.

Opinion leaders usually seek interactive venues where they can be participants. Most others prefer passive roles offering interesting and informative lectures, with a bit of entertainment mixed in (this is the big debate issue in association education).

Hopefully, association leaders will utilize learning methods based on audience desires, not educator opinions of what audiences should desire. What’s the problem with that?

Where do you stand on the idea of learning styles, David?