# data[].attributes.body
I am sorry I forgot to sign in before starting my thoughts. So I had to copy to re-post as myself.

I think annotating has been a great tool to learn but at the same time hard to master. I learned about annotating a few semester ago and I still have not mastered it. I start by reading the entire text or article, then I read it again and start to annotate as I read, doing it this way for me has been easier because I find that while reading the second time the important things stand out a bit more. It works for me even though it has to be read twice.
The article was interesting because I have taken the VARK test before and thought it was a way to teach me to study and retain information better. The article itself debunked what I was lead to believe. It basically tells you how you prefer to learn, the remembering and retaining of the information is all up to the individual. I use audio while I'm on the go and when listening to the media I find that I can associate the pictures and descriptions from the book to the audio I am listening to. The article was a surprise when it mentioned that it bears no weight on how well you'll do on a test or remember information, but rather it is telling you your preference in learning style. All in all I found the article very interesting.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
That same year, a Journal of Educational Psychology paper found no relationship between the study subjects' learning-style preference (visual or auditory) and their performance on reading- or listening-comprehension tests. Instead, the visual learners performed best on all kinds of tests. Therefore, the authors concluded, teachers should stop trying to gear some lessons toward "auditory learners."

# data[].attributes.body
https://scrible.com/s/0BK2k
I struggle a lot with annotating my notes. As I read, I tend to be more invested into understanding the words I'm reading rather than the thoughts that pass through my head as I read, if that makes sense. If I do need to annotate, I usually need to read something twice before I can go through again and formulate notes to write on the side, so my annotations are always a bit off. If anyone has any tips, I'd really enjoy hearing them! :)

This article was based on discrediting the belief that learning styles help you learn faster. It begins by explaining the different learning styles and introducing the VARK questionnaire site, and uses multiple quotes from different scientists as well as three different scientific study journals to prove that learning styles only improve the experience of studying, not the effectiveness.

A) Personally, I enjoyed the fact that they're spreading this information about learning styles backed up with logical facts. The last couple sentences really hit home, stating, "In other words, [learning styles] might help you learn about yourself, but it might not help you learn." Although different versions of this statement are used throughout the article, I believe that it really helped my thoughts come full circle and simplified the information that was conveyed to me.

P.S. I'd also like to add that while I did enjoy learning about how learning styles affect my study habits, I really disliked how negative the reading seemed to be. It really felt like they were convincing the reader to stop using learning styles all together, rather than letting the reader gather their own opinions and information through facts. It was a bit upsetting, but still an enjoyable and interesting article.

# data[].attributes.body
One area of annotation I know I need to improve on would be highlighting information. I tend to highlight a lot while annotation because I feel like most of what I read is important for me to know. I also try to find and summarize the most important points or ideas in each paragraph and sometimes add to much information in my notes

I found the article to be have some interesting points how people should not think of themselves as having one learning style. The article talks about the VARK questionnaire, saying how the different learning styles that the quiz suggests to people who take it is not always the way you should learn. The article shares mutiple studies that shows that there are no correlations between learning styles and success while applying that learning style to actual work. Taking the quiz may tell you what you like, but it may not be effective in helping you learn new material. By the end of the article, it encourages people to embrace having mutiple ways of learning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
That same year, a Journal of Educational Psychology paper found no relationship between the study subjects' learning-style preference (visual or auditory) and their performance on reading- or listening-comprehension tests. Instead, the visual learners performed best on all kinds of tests. Therefore, the authors concluded, teachers should stop trying to gear some lessons toward "auditory learners." "Educators may actually be doing a disservice to auditory learners by continually accommodating their auditory learning style," the researchers wrote, "rather than focusing on strengthening their visual word skills."

In our conversation, Willingham brought up another study, published in 2009, in which people who said that they liked to think visually or verbally really did try to think that way: Self-proclaimed visualizers tried to create an image, and self-proclaimed verbalizers tried to form words. But, there was a rub, he said: "If you're a visualizer and I give you pictures, you don't remember pictures any better than anyone who says they're a verbalizer."

This doesn't mean everyone is equally good at every skill, of course. Really, Willingham said, people have different abilities, not styles. Some people read better than others; some people hear worse than others. But most of the tasks that we encounter are really suited to only one type of learning. You can't visualize a perfect French accent, for example.

The VARK questionnaire itself illustrates this problem pretty well. One question, for example, asks:

You are planning a vacation for a group. You want some feedback from them about the plan. You would:

describe some of the highlights they will experience.

use a map to show them the places.

give them a copy of the printed itinerary.

phone, text, or email them.

But of course, any friend-having human in 2018 would email their friends to coordinate group travel, whether or not that email includes the first three elements. (Another question asks, sweetly, "You are helping someone who wants to go to the airport" and suggests different ways of giving directions, along with the option to simply "go with her." It depends on the "her" in question, one would assume!)

The "learning styles" idea has snowballed- as late as 2014, more than 90 percent of teachers in various countries believed it. The concept is intuitively appealing, promising to reveal secret brain processes with just a few questions. Strangely, most research on learning styles starts out with a positive portrayal of the theory-before showing it doesn't work.

Willingham goes so far as to say that people should stop thinking of themselves as visual, verbal, or some other kind of learner. "It's not like anything terrible is going to happen to you [if you do buy into learning styles]," he said, but there's not any benefit to it, either. "Everyone is able to think in words; everyone is able to think in mental images. It's much better to think of everyone having a toolbox of ways to think, and think to yourself, which tool is best?"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
That same year, a Journal of Educational Psychology paper found no relationship between the study subjects' learning-style preference (visual or auditory) and their performance on reading- or listening-comprehension tests. Instead, the visual learners performed best on all kinds of tests. Therefore, the authors concluded, teachers should stop trying to gear some lessons toward "auditory learners."

# data[].attributes.body
I think annotating and knowing what to annotate can be particularity difficult for me, especially when it comes to putting things in my own words. I find it hard to put the words that I just read out of my head and use my own vocabulary and style of speech. Please let me know if I did this incorrectly, or if you have any tips for me.

The article was about the learning styles of individuals, based upon tools like the VARK questionnaire and how effective this theory is. Through multiple avenues of research experts have found that trying to structure teaching around a person's specific learning style is actually not only ineffective, but can be counterproductive.

I was surprised by the conclusion that learning styles and the VARK questionnaire aren't actually helpful to students when applied. I scored almost exclusively in the kinesthetic learning styles portion of the questionnaire and upon educating myself more about what that meant, I felt it matched exactly how I perform best in a learning environment. So while I believe the article made some valid points about why using certain learning styles to teach is ineffective, I only have my own experiences to really come to any of my own conclusions. Before I ever took the questionnaire, I've noticed some things like reading require a lot more of my time and energy, and I often still feel like I'm missing things. It can take me multiple tries of reading a page before a really grasp the information. On the hand, whenever I have been taught in a hands on setting I feel I pick things up very quickly, and I have been told as much by my instructors. I do agree with the part that said people just have different abilities than others though, so maybe it's just that really need to practice to better develop my other abilities to see the results that they've come to in this article.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
That same year, a Journal of Educational Psychology paper found no relationship between the study subjects' learning-style preference (visual or auditory) and their performance on reading- or listening-comprehension tests. Instead, the visual learners performed best on all kinds of tests. Therefore, the authors concluded, teachers should stop trying to gear some lessons toward "auditory learners." "Educators may actually be doing a disservice to auditory learners by continually accommodating their auditory learning style," the researchers wrote, "rather than focusing on strengthening their visual word skills."

In our conversation, Willingham brought up another study, published in 2009, in which people who said that they liked to think visually or verbally really did try to think that way: Self-proclaimed visualizers tried to create an image, and self-proclaimed verbalizers tried to form words. But, there was a rub, he said: "If you're a visualizer and I give you pictures, you don't remember pictures any better than anyone who says they're a verbalizer."

This doesn't mean everyone is equally good at every skill, of course. Really, Willingham said, people have different abilities, not styles. Some people read better than others; some people hear worse than others. But most of the tasks that we encounter are really suited to only one type of learning. You can't visualize a perfect French accent, for example.

The VARK questionnaire itself illustrates this problem pretty well. One question, for example, asks:

You are planning a vacation for a group. You want some feedback from them about the plan. You would:

describe some of the highlights they will experience.

use a map to show them the places.

give them a copy of the printed itinerary.

phone, text, or email them.

But of course, any friend-having human in 2018 would email their friends to coordinate group travel, whether or not that email includes the first three elements. (Another question asks, sweetly, "You are helping someone who wants to go to the airport" and suggests different ways of giving directions, along with the option to simply "go with her." It depends on the "her" in question, one would assume!)

The "learning styles" idea has snowballed- as late as 2014, more than 90 percent of teachers in various countries believed it. The concept is intuitively appealing, promising to reveal secret brain processes with just a few questions. Strangely, most research on learning styles starts out with a positive portrayal of the theory-before showing it doesn't work.

Willingham goes so far as to say that people should stop thinking of themselves as visual, verbal, or some other kind of learner. "It's not like anything terrible is going to happen to you [if you do buy into learning styles]," he said, but there's not any benefit to it, either. "Everyone is able to think in words; everyone is able to think in mental images. It's much better to think of everyone having a toolbox of ways to think, and think to yourself, which tool is best?"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
That same year, a Journal of Educational Psychology paper found no relationship between the study subjects' learning-style preference (visual or auditory) and their performance on reading- or listening-comprehension tests. Instead, the visual learners performed best on all kinds of tests. Therefore, the authors concluded, teachers should stop trying to gear some lessons toward "auditory learners."

# data[].attributes.body
https://scrible.com/s/0BK64
I'm more of a note-taker than a highlighter when I study, read information, or just in general. I feel like I can implant information better in my head by physically writing down something on paper. Highlighting on the computer is a new skill and I hope to get better at it but please let me know what you think of my annotations and summaries!
A: The article talked a lot about how a person does not have one specific learning style and I agree. We all have many skills and using all of the learning styles to strengthen the ones we aren't good at will only benefit us in the end. Teachers should not change their teaching styles to one learning style. They should involve all aspects of teaching such as visual, aural, reading/writing, and kinesthetic to stimulate all types of learning. Also, people should not change their learning habits if it works for them to what is recommended by the VARK questionnaire. When I took the questionnaire I was told I was a kinesthetic learner, which I agree with, but I also have qualities of other learning types. I feel that this article was accurate and informational and that we should not take a learning style questionnaire so seriously. Whatever style works for you is the best style.

# data[].attributes.body
https://scrible.com/s/2dK64
My annotating went with some difficulty. i am not sure I did it correctly . please let me know if you see corrections or fixs to my mistakes. That said I found the article interesting if a bit dull. I am not surprised that a theory relying on popular anecdotes is debunked by rigorus studies.  When I took the VARK test for myself it said I was multimodel, and i read most people are multimodel which to me seemed to invalidat the theory of differing styles from the get go. everyones multimodel so all those differences overlap and end up being similar.

# data[].attributes.body
https://scrible.com/s/mJGMQ
When I read, I tend to have a hard time annotating what I'm reading because I get too into the article. Please let me know what you think about my attempt at annotating and highlighting. I hope to get better at this as I use it more during my classes.
The article talked about people not having one specific learning style. Also, that people shouldn't focus too much on changing their study habits to fit their learning style because it won't make a difference in retaining the information presented. I agree with this article because once we've developed certain study habits, it's hard to break. I think we might put too much effort into following the study strategies recommended by the VARK questionnaire that we might neglect to focus on the information we are trying to retain. I feel that over the years, we find different study strategies that work for us and should stick to it. The VARK questionnaire study recommendations might be helpful to those who fail to find study strategies that work for them. When I took the questionnaire, I was told that I was an aural learner. I didn't understand this because I prefer hard copies of course material so that I can write my own notes. Sometimes, I have a hard time recalling what an instructor said during a lecture. I learn better when I study the text. If I stuck to the study recommendations, I might have done myself more harm than good. I also agree that teachers should stop trying to change their teaching style to suit only a certain learning style because it won't accommodate all students. Students, if willing, will find their own ways to retain the information given. If not, then they can ask for help.

# data[].attributes.body
Thanks for the advice in advance! Was my highlighting enough? I felt it may have been a little too vague. I tend to be an over-excessive highlighter so It's going to be something I plan on working on this semester.
A) I agree with the authors opinion that learning styles do not define how good a student can be in taking exams, and studying. " Husmann found that not only did students not study in ways that seemed to reflect their learning style, but those who did tailor their studying to suit their style didn’t do any better on their tests." This is shown to be evidence of my previous statement.
“I think as a purely reflective exercise, just to get you thinking about your study habits, [VARK] might have a benefit,” I agree with this statement because it is good to be aware of your own personal learning style, but it isn't something that will fully define you as a student. As studies show, it also signifies there is no solid evidence that knowing your learning style will make you become all of a sudden better with your exams, and classes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
That same year, a Journal of Educational Psychology paper found no relationship between the study subjects' learning-style preference (visual or auditory) and their performance on reading- or listening-comprehension tests. Instead, the visual learners performed best on all kinds of tests. Therefore, the authors concluded, teachers should stop trying to gear some lessons toward "auditory learners." "Educators may actually be doing a disservice to auditory learners by continually accommodating their auditory learning style," the researchers wrote, "rather than focusing on strengthening their visual word skills."

In our conversation, Willingham brought up another study, published in 2009, in which people who said that they liked to think visually or verbally really did try to think that way: Self-proclaimed visualizers tried to create an image, and self-proclaimed verbalizers tried to form words. But, there was a rub, he said: "If you're a visualizer and I give you pictures, you don't remember pictures any better than anyone who says they're a verbalizer."

This doesn't mean everyone is equally good at every skill, of course. Really, Willingham said, people have different abilities, not styles. Some people read better than others; some people hear worse than others. But most of the tasks that we encounter are really suited to only one type of learning. You can't visualize a perfect French accent, for example.

The VARK questionnaire itself illustrates this problem pretty well. One question, for example, asks:

You are planning a vacation for a group. You want some feedback from them about the plan. You would:

describe some of the highlights they will experience.

use a map to show them the places.

give them a copy of the printed itinerary.

phone, text, or email them.

But of course, any friend-having human in 2018 would email their friends to coordinate group travel, whether or not that email includes the first three elements. (Another question asks, sweetly, "You are helping someone who wants to go to the airport" and suggests different ways of giving directions, along with the option to simply "go with her." It depends on the "her" in question, one would assume!)

The "learning styles" idea has snowballed- as late as 2014, more than 90 percent of teachers in various countries believed it. The concept is intuitively appealing, promising to reveal secret brain processes with just a few questions. Strangely, most research on learning styles starts out with a positive portrayal of the theory-before showing it doesn't work.

Willingham goes so far as to say that people should stop thinking of themselves as visual, verbal, or some other kind of learner. "It's not like anything terrible is going to happen to you [if you do buy into learning styles]," he said, but there's not any benefit to it, either. "Everyone is able to think in words; everyone is able to think in mental images. It's much better to think of everyone having a toolbox of ways to think, and think to yourself, which tool is best?"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
That same year, a Journal of Educational Psychology paper found no relationship between the study subjects' learning-style preference (visual or auditory) and their performance on reading- or listening-comprehension tests. Instead, the visual learners performed best on all kinds of tests. Therefore, the authors concluded, teachers should stop trying to gear some lessons toward "auditory learners."

# data[].attributes.body
https://scrible.com/s/0BWOQ

The article was interesting. Experts have been studying about " learning style" even thought they   have never figured out well. However, VARK was  know by people and it became popular theory, but it was changed to just one of communication's tool. So far nobody figure out "Learnig Styles". That is like Myth.  I like the article because the end of the story  is dramatic irony.
When I worked in Japan, the employees often took a "Personality Test". like who is the most suited person as manager? My personality was not suited, but I become a training manager and succeeded. I think that these kind of test are very useful for one of the communications' tool. Thank you.

# data[].attributes.body
https://scrible.com/s/65WgA
Please let me know if you think I highlighted the right information or some was unnecessary. That would be particularly helpful. Thank you.

The Article talked about a person not having a specific learning style but having different tools that works for each learner.  I agree with this idea.  When I took the VARK questionnaire, my results were "multimodal," meaning I have multiple learning styles.  Not one specific learning style applies to me.  This is true because in one situation I may prefer to read a hard copy version of the material but in other situations, I may respond and remember better by listening to the information.  I also liked the idea that just because you are a certain type of learner, does not mean that the offered learning strategies will help.  It is whatever works best for you and your learning.  Thank you.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
That same year, a Journal of Educational Psychology paper found no relationship between the study subjects' learning-style preference (visual or auditory) and their performance on reading- or listening-comprehension tests. Instead, the visual learners performed best on all kinds of tests. Therefore, the authors concluded, teachers should stop trying to gear some lessons toward "auditory learners." "Educators may actually be doing a disservice to auditory learners by continually accommodating their auditory learning style," the researchers wrote, "rather than focusing on strengthening their visual word skills."

In our conversation, Willingham brought up another study, published in 2009, in which people who said that they liked to think visually or verbally really did try to think that way: Self-proclaimed visualizers tried to create an image, and self-proclaimed verbalizers tried to form words. But, there was a rub, he said: "If you're a visualizer and I give you pictures, you don't remember pictures any better than anyone who says they're a verbalizer."

This doesn't mean everyone is equally good at every skill, of course. Really, Willingham said, people have different abilities, not styles. Some people read better than others; some people hear worse than others. But most of the tasks that we encounter are really suited to only one type of learning. You can't visualize a perfect French accent, for example.

The VARK questionnaire itself illustrates this problem pretty well. One question, for example, asks:

You are planning a vacation for a group. You want some feedback from them about the plan. You would:

describe some of the highlights they will experience.

use a map to show them the places.

give them a copy of the printed itinerary.

phone, text, or email them.

But of course, any friend-having human in 2018 would email their friends to coordinate group travel, whether or not that email includes the first three elements. (Another question asks, sweetly, "You are helping someone who wants to go to the airport" and suggests different ways of giving directions, along with the option to simply "go with her." It depends on the "her" in question, one would assume!)

The "learning styles" idea has snowballed- as late as 2014, more than 90 percent of teachers in various countries believed it. The concept is intuitively appealing, promising to reveal secret brain processes with just a few questions. Strangely, most research on learning styles starts out with a positive portrayal of the theory-before showing it doesn't work.

Willingham goes so far as to say that people should stop thinking of themselves as visual, verbal, or some other kind of learner. "It's not like anything terrible is going to happen to you [if you do buy into learning styles]," he said, but there's not any benefit to it, either. "Everyone is able to think in words; everyone is able to think in mental images. It's much better to think of everyone having a toolbox of ways to think, and think to yourself, which tool is best?"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
That same year, a Journal of Educational Psychology paper found no relationship between the study subjects' learning-style preference (visual or auditory) and their performance on reading- or listening-comprehension tests. Instead, the visual learners performed best on all kinds of tests. Therefore, the authors concluded, teachers should stop trying to gear some lessons toward "auditory learners."

# data[].attributes.body
I'm excited to read your posts! I loved the resources you guys shared in Padlet last week. I'm shocked we have so many kinesthetic learners in our class. I think you'll find the Atlantic's article fascinating. I'll be following this discussion closely. I'm eager to see who will get us started! Just double click anywhere on the wall to get started.