小心这个神话:学习风格会影响父母、孩子和老师对孩子学习潜力的思考。

IF 3.6 1区 心理学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH npj Science of Learning Pub Date : 2023-10-17 DOI:10.1038/s41539-023-00190-x
Xin Sun, Owen Norton, Shaylene E Nancekivell
{"title":"小心这个神话:学习风格会影响父母、孩子和老师对孩子学习潜力的思考。","authors":"Xin Sun, Owen Norton, Shaylene E Nancekivell","doi":"10.1038/s41539-023-00190-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Three experiments examine how providing learning style information (a student learns hands-on or visually) might influence thinking about that student's academic potential. Samples were American and predominately white and middle-class. In Experiment 1, parents (N = 94) and children (N = 73, 6-12 years) judged students who learn visually as more intelligent than hands-on learners. Experiment 2 replicated this pattern with parents and teachers (N = 172). In Experiment 3 (pre-registered), parents and teachers (N = 200) predicted that visual learners are more skilled than hands-on learners at \"core\" school subjects (math/language/social sciences, except science), whereas, hands-on learners were skilled at non-core subjects (gym/music/art). Together, these studies show that learning style descriptions, resultant of a myth, impact thinking about children's intellectual aptitudes.</p>","PeriodicalId":48503,"journal":{"name":"npj Science of Learning","volume":"8 1","pages":"46"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10582039/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beware the myth: learning styles affect parents', children's, and teachers' thinking about children's academic potential.\",\"authors\":\"Xin Sun, Owen Norton, Shaylene E Nancekivell\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41539-023-00190-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Three experiments examine how providing learning style information (a student learns hands-on or visually) might influence thinking about that student's academic potential. Samples were American and predominately white and middle-class. In Experiment 1, parents (N = 94) and children (N = 73, 6-12 years) judged students who learn visually as more intelligent than hands-on learners. Experiment 2 replicated this pattern with parents and teachers (N = 172). In Experiment 3 (pre-registered), parents and teachers (N = 200) predicted that visual learners are more skilled than hands-on learners at \\\"core\\\" school subjects (math/language/social sciences, except science), whereas, hands-on learners were skilled at non-core subjects (gym/music/art). Together, these studies show that learning style descriptions, resultant of a myth, impact thinking about children's intellectual aptitudes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48503,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"npj Science of Learning\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"46\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10582039/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"npj Science of Learning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-023-00190-x\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"npj Science of Learning","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-023-00190-x","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

三个实验考察了提供学习风格的信息(学生亲自动手或视觉学习)如何影响对学生学术潜力的思考。样本是美国人,主要是白人和中产阶级。在实验1中,父母(N = 94)和儿童(N = 73岁、6-12岁)的学生认为视觉学习的学生比动手学习的学生更聪明。实验2在家长和老师中复制了这种模式(N = 172)。在实验3(预注册)中,家长和老师(N = 200)预测,视觉学习者在“核心”学校科目(数学/语言/社会科学,科学除外)上比动手学习者更熟练,而动手学习者在非核心科目(体育/音乐/艺术)上更熟练。总之,这些研究表明,由神话产生的学习风格描述会影响对儿童智力的思考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Beware the myth: learning styles affect parents', children's, and teachers' thinking about children's academic potential.

Three experiments examine how providing learning style information (a student learns hands-on or visually) might influence thinking about that student's academic potential. Samples were American and predominately white and middle-class. In Experiment 1, parents (N = 94) and children (N = 73, 6-12 years) judged students who learn visually as more intelligent than hands-on learners. Experiment 2 replicated this pattern with parents and teachers (N = 172). In Experiment 3 (pre-registered), parents and teachers (N = 200) predicted that visual learners are more skilled than hands-on learners at "core" school subjects (math/language/social sciences, except science), whereas, hands-on learners were skilled at non-core subjects (gym/music/art). Together, these studies show that learning style descriptions, resultant of a myth, impact thinking about children's intellectual aptitudes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
29
期刊最新文献
Spatiotemporal predictions guide attention throughout the adult lifespan. Interbrain neural correlates of self and other integration in joint statistical learning. Feature versus object in interpreting working memory capacity. Mathematics interest, self-efficacy, and anxiety predict STEM career choice in emerging adulthood. Enhancing mathematical learning outcomes through a low-cost single-channel BCI system.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1