This is very true. A corporate trainer once told me there's specific kinds of learners. They've actually identified each type, and which specific methodologies you need to reach each one. The best teachers find a way to synthesize it all into an effective single presentation. (This may also be why tutors are so helpful -- they can customize their material to the audience...)
Although there is ample evidence that individuals express preferences for how they prefer to receive information, few studies have found any validity in using learning styles in education.[2] Critics say there is no evidence that identifying an individual student's learning style produces better outcomes. There is evidence of empirical and pedagogical problems related to the use of learning tasks to "correspond to differences in a one-to-one fashion".[3] Well-designed studies contradict the widespread "meshing hypothesis", that a student will learn best if taught in a method deemed appropriate for the student's learning style.[2]
Heh. Okay, that's good to know. These comments prompted me to look up "Learning Styles" on Wikipedia, which confirms that scientific studies have not confirmed the validity of the "different learning styles" theory.
That probably says something about corporate trainers. I still remember the HR department at one company where I worked that insisted on giving the Myers-Briggs personality test to every employee. So maybe this also says something about junk science and the way it lingers on in our workplaces...
A corporate trainer once told me there's specific kinds of learners.
I don't believe there is compelling evidence that this is the case.
Instead, different people have different backgrounds and experiences. Learning requires making connections. Depending on what you have in your head already to which you can connect, you may respond differently about a particular topic than someone else.
