Learning Styles Index: No one right answer?

So I'm sitting here look at this nicely done list of instructional design models; and I'm thinking this is why I am so wary of people or models promoting the "7" this or "9" that...I saw this panel at ISPI several years ago. It was supposed to be one of those "Myths, Fads, and Fallacies" of learning that are so much fun (so much fun in fact, we did a session of #lrnchat on it). 

One of the "gurus" on stage was Thiagi. Brilliant and humorous as ever; Thiagi looked up and down the table and said, in that accent, "It's clear to me that I am the only Indian at a table full of chiefs." The crowd cracked up, but then Thiagi proceeded to tell the audience that the idea of "systems" thinking about something as inherently messy as learning was (and I'm paraphrasing) a bit arrogant. He did this with great style and humor and the whole room was chuckling the whole time. 

The whole time though, I was looking around thinking "do you people hear what he is saying?" I think some of them didn't but some of them probably did and were laughing nervously. So when I look at this list and I think of Thiagi's talk, I'm reminded that what we may want to pursue is something more like a school of thought - with rooms for many models and many ways of thinking - but with an emphasis on the discipline, critical thinking skills, willingness to challenge accepted wisdom and intellectual curiosity and rigor that would serve all of us well. 

Comments

[Karyn Romeis]

Wish I'd been there. He sounds like my kinda learning guy!

[Rob Letcher]

I think I was at that ISPI conference and sat in that session. At that time, I think I was still subscribing to the neat and tidy "learning styles" mindset - and that's what it is, really. I think that - by nature - we like to pigeonhole people into categories in an effort to make our lives and understanding easier. But learning is messy. It is a living breathing human endeavor. To subscribe to a specific method, strictly defined just isn't realistic. One size fits all really just fits a narrow spectrum of learners.

[Simon Bostock]

The school of thought image is apt, I think. I also like Alan Cooper's description (of Agile, not learning, but it still applies): not art, but science but craft.

The key elements of craft are, just as you say, discipline, curiosity and critical thinking. And, crucially, involve working with your materials. Kind of the opposite of theorising.

The ID models and the Learning Styles inventories are great if you can use all of them, taking a bit here and a bit there. But stultifying if they become part of a culture or, worse, a bureaucracy.

I think Thiagi's right about him being a 'lightweight'. But only in the Italo Calvino sense - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Memos_for_the_Next_Millennium

[Sivasailam "Thiagi" Thiagarajan]

I enjoy reading e-Clippings. Keeps me updated on my areas of interest.

Thanks for the links on ID models. I am slightly depressed because I remember seeing a very similar set of models circa 1968.

Some corrections: I am not a guru, but just a beginning learner in the field. Fortunately I don't cited in any of the ID models literature. I am considered a lightweight in the field. I am more of a practitioner rather than a researcher or a philosopher. I have a passion for ID and I get a kick when I see someone achieving results as a result of experiencing my design. I don't have a need to disagree or argue with others, but I keep seeing naked emperors running around.

I have come a long way since the ISPI session that you described. I am glad a few felt provoked beyond the laughter. I continue running workshops on an alternative approach to ID and I am in the process of writing a book ("Really Rapid (and Different) Instructional Design) to be published by ASTD press next year.

Looking forward to stalking you in 2010.