Activity 4.3


I was dumbfounded by the results of the article ("Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence"). Since I plan on being a high school teacher, I have thought extensively on which teaching methods to use in order to have the greatest impact on my students. This being so, I had come across the "meshing hypothesis" before (never by name, though - I simply knew it by application) and heartily agreed with the principle. I referred to the hypothesis as a principle in the previous because, to me, an eager future teacher, that's exactly what the "meshing hypothesis" was: a goal to be established, a principle to be upheld. 


"Yes!" I thought. "What better way to help my students learn than to individual cater to each learning style and preference?" I didn't realize the practical implications of that assertion at the time, being as zealous as neophytes generally are.  I didn't recognize the time and effort that it would take to individualize lessons or stop to wonder if, in fact, appealing to preferences would actually benefit the student more. 


After reading the article, I am still, as I said before, dumbfounded. How could a hypothesis, which is so widely understood (or at least it seemed), be unsubstantiated by evidence? Why is it continuing to be referenced in educational classes and among future teachers? 


The answer: the "meshing hypothesis" is so widely referenced because it is so appealing to educators. The very premise gives teachers hope (ie. the willing student + knowledge of preference + right lesson plan = success). It seems to present the teachers a veritable code that, if deciphered in the right order during the right circumstances, should end in success each and every time. Before the article  the hypothesis sounded wonderful; it sounded achievable. 


But now, after reading the article (multiple times), it just sounds impractical.