L&B Blog – Page 38 – Education & Teacher Conferences Skip to main content
“How You Got to Be So Smart”: The Evolution of our Brains
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

When did learning first begin?

For me, individually, you might say it began when I first attended preschool. But, truthfully, learning began well before then.

I learned how to walk and speak, and to do (a very few of) the things my parents told me to do.

In the womb, I even learned to recognize sounds – like my mother’s voice.

But, let’s go much further back.

When did our species start learning? Or, before then, great apes? Or, even earlier, mammals?

Did dinosaurs learn?

How about those little one-celled organisms that developed when life began, over 3.5 billion years ago? Did they do anything we could meaningfully call “learning”?

Paul Howard-Jones answers that question with a resounding yes. And, most intriguingly, the biological mechanisms that allowed them to learn still help us to do so…all these billions of years later.

As Howard-Jones writes, learning “changes not just our mental world but also our biological form.” The basic biological and chemical mechanisms necessary for the earliest kinds of learning still help us learn today.

The Story Begins

Let’s start with E. coli. This single cellular organism has a bad rep, but we’ve got lots of very useful E. coli in our guts. And, they can – in a manner of speaking – learn.

In order to eat, E. coli have to move. And, they have two options for movement. If they’re successfully getting nutrition as they move, they want to keep going straight. If they’re not, they want to move randomly about – until they stumble into a better path to follow. Once they do, they start going straight again.

To accomplish this goal, E coli need to “remember” how much nutrition they were getting a few seconds ago, and compare that level to the current intake. Remembering, of course, is a kind of learning.

Howard-Jones helpfully describes the cellular mechanism that allows this memory comparison to happen. It’s a little complicated: think “methyl groups” and “receptors.” But, this clever and efficient system allows cells to remember, and thereby to eat and flourish. (Check out pages 24-5 for a full version of this story.)

Learning gets even cooler from there.

As evolution brought single-cellular organisms together into eukaryotes – from which sprang reptiles and amphibians and mammals and you – it produced ever-more-intricate systems for learning.

For instance, neurons evolved to ensure that multi-cellular organisms could coordinate their movements. (If each cell did its own thing, then we’d get no benefits from having all those cells.)

And, of course, neurons now form the biological basis of learning that happens in our brains.

Vertebrates and Primates

As evolution led to the development of more-and-more complex organisms, so too it produced increasingly complex kinds of learning: the ability to organize information by association, for example, or to recall something that happened yesterday.

The Evolution of the Learning Brain, devotes considerable time to primate development. In particular, it asks this question: since most evolutionary developments favor specialization, why did our species prove so successful? After all, our brains allow for great cognitive flexibility – the ability to be generalists, not specialists.

Howard-Jones answers this question by looking at the extraordinary climatic and geological upheaval at the time of our evolution.

Primates developed cognitive complexity – probably – in order to keep track of larger and larger social networks.

For instance, female vervet monkeys recognize their own offsprings’ cries. When they hear their children cry, unsurprisingly, they look at the child. When they hear someone else’s child cry, amazingly, they look at that child’s mother.

The story gets even more complicated when we look at chimpanzee dominance networks.

At the same time, later primates developed basic “theory of mind”: the ability to think about what others are thinking.

In one astonishing study, chimpanzees preferred to steal back food when researchers weren’t present – or when the container from which they stole the food was opaque. That is, chimps can think about what others can see, and behave accordingly.

All this complexity – social intelligence, theory of mind – proved especially important during the opening of the Great Rift in Africa: geological changes that led to rapidly changing climate and terrain. In this unusual set of circumstances, a species (like, say, Homo sapiens) with extra cognitive complexity was in a better position to manage upheavals.

As Howard-Jones writes:

The unique geology of the Rift Valley …is thought to have produced extreme climate variability with cycles lasting 400,000 or 800,000 years. […]

This inconsistent environment provided a novel genetic testing ground in which different hominin species were pursuing different approaches to survival, including generalizing vs. specializing. […]

Rather than evolving to fit one change, [Homo sapiens] evolved greater ability to respond to change itself.

Wow.

Classroom Implications

How should this understanding of evolution and learning shape our classroom practice?

Howard-Jones remains helpfully modest in answering this question. As he writes:

Evolution cannot tell us how to teach and learn, but it can help us frame and understand this research.

In his closing chapters, therefore, Howard-Jones encourages us to think about teaching with this perspective.

He suggests several insights about a) engagement, b) building of knowledge, and c) consolidation of learning that have evolutionary and neuro-biological grounding.

For instance: engagement. How can we help students pay attention?

Teachers have long known that novelty helps students focus. (Evolution helps explain why. Anything new could be a threat. Or, it could be food!)

Howard-Jones points out that shared attention is itself motivating:

Our strong motivation to share attention is a uniquely human characteristic that may have played a key role in our ancient cultural accumulation of knowledge, as it does today. When self-initiated, this capturing of shared attention also leads to reward-related brain activation.

In other words: schooling works because we invite our students to look with us, and to look with each other.

Another practical application: embodied cognition. Howard-Jones details several studies where a particular kind of movement helps students learn particular content.

He also explains why numbers and reading – more cultural practices than evolved cognitive capabilities – prove an enduring challenge to our students.

In Sum

Howard-Jones brings together many disciplines and a few billion years of history to tell this story.

Some readers might wish for more immediate, concrete teaching strategies. Some specialists, no doubt, disagree with his interpretation of the evidence.

I recommend this book so highly not because it tells us to do particular things, but because it helps us think in new and fresh ways about the work we have to do.

If we understand the evolutionary and neuro-biological sources of our difficulties and our enormous potential, we can think more realistically about avenues of success in schools.

In the words of Howard-Jones’s subtitle, we’ll understand how we got to be so smart. We might even understand how to get smarter still.

Why Do “Learning Styles” Theories Persist? [Updated 6-7-19]
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Over on Twitter, Blake Harvard has started a lively discussion about the persistence of Learning Styles Theory.

Given that the theory has been so widely debunked, why does it — zombie-like — stagger on?

To answer this question, Harvard checked out the websites of the top ten schools of education in the US. He searched for “learning styles,” and explored the first page of the search results.

His findings? Of those first pages:

One school (Columbia Teachers College) included a link that debunked the myth.

Two schools had no relevant mentions.

The remaining seven (including the ed school I attended!) included links to a neutral or positive description of learning styles.

Frying Pan, Meet Fire

Since posting his results, Harvard has raised the stakes.

In this twitter post, he invited readers to check out their own ed schools’ pages to see what they found.

The grim responses will dismay you. I haven’t tabulated the numbers — the list keeps growing — but the “roughly 70%” level seems plausible.

Imagine, for instance, that medical schools were still teaching miasma theory to explain cholera. Or that law schools were teaching that it’s unconstitutional for women to vote in federal elections.

In effect, that’s happening in today’s schools of education.

An Alternative, Additional Explanation

Perhaps this myth persists because our professional schools teach it. (Or, fail to root it out.)

Perhaps it persists because — you might want to sit down for this one — it’s mostly false but partly true.

For example: we do learn material better if we have many different ways to access a memory.

If I say: “I’m thinking of an actor from Australia,” you might or might not know who I’m talking about.

But:

If I say: “I’m thinking about an actress. She’s from Australia. She was in that movie about Virginia Woolf. And she was married to Tom Cruise,” you’re MUCH likelier to figure out that I’m talking about Nicole Kidman.

Instead of calling up 2 neural networks (profession, people from Australia), I’ve called up 5 (profession, gender, people from Australia, Virginia Woolf movies, people married to Tom Cruise.)

So, too, if you believe learning styles theory, you’re likely to teach everything multiple ways (visually, auditorily, kinesthetically). That is, you’re giving students three distinct cues to access a particular memory.

This strategy WILL help students learn better, but NOT because some are visual learners and others are auditory learners.

If this explanation is true, then we have to go beyond “the theory is wrong.” We need to say “this part of the theory works for this reason, and that part works for that reason. But, the theory itself isn’t correct.”

That message requires more nuance, but might be more effective in persuading teachers — and schools of education — to update their understandings of teaching and learning.


A note on credit. I believe that this “mostly false but partly true” hypothesis comes from The Learning Scientists’ blog. Alas, I haven’t been able to locate the precise source. Credit for this idea shouldn’t go to me, but … at the moment of writing this post … I can’t determine who really gets it. I’ll update the post once I find out.


[Updated 6-7-19] Yana Weinstein-Jones has helpfully pointed me to the Learning Scientists source. It is this blog post, by Carolina Kuepper-Tetzel. I recommend it highly.

Handshakes at the Door: Hype, or Helpful?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

You’ve seen the adorable videos. Teachers have special handshakes they use to greet students as they enter the classroom. For instance:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0jgcyfC2r8

I can’t help but smile when I see a video like that. What could set a better mood to start an academic day?

Of course, I’d smile even more if we had research to show such a strategy might be effective.

Well, let me shake your hand this morning with good news: we do have such research.

Beyond Cute Videos

All teachers recognize the problem. In the hallway between classes, students revel in their freedom. We want them to settle down and get working.

How can we best make that vital tonal transition happen?

A large research team investigated a proactive strategy they call “positive greetings at the door.” The strategy focuses on two steps:

First: greeting each student positively at the door: “Good morning, Dan — great hat!”

Second: offering “precorretive” reminders: “We’re starting with our flashcards, so be sure to take them out right away.”

The researchers trained five teachers (in sixth, seventh, and eighth grades) in these strategies.

Happily, the researchers did a great job to ensure the validity of their research. For instance, the control group was not merely five other teachers going about “business as usual.” Instead, this control group was also trained by school administrators in other classroom management strategies.

In other words: all ten teachers got training. Five practiced “positive greetings”; five practiced “attention control.” Overall, more than 200 students were in these classrooms.

The Envelope Please

What effect did all these greetings and all these proactive reminders have?

Researchers video-taped classes before and after these trainings.

For the control group, little changed. Time on task was in the mid-to-high 50%, while disruptive behaviors took place about 15% of the time.

For the positive greeting group, researchers saw big changes.

Time on task went from the high-50% to more than 80% of the time.

Disruptive behaviors fell from ~15% to less than 5% of the time.

All that from positive greetings.

Will This Strategy Work for Each of Us?

Researchers chose classrooms that were both racially and economically diverse.

At the same time, they asked principals to nominate classes that had seen higher-than-average levels of disruption.

That is: if your class is already well behaved, you might not see much of a change. (Of course, if your class is already well behaved, you don’t really need much of a change.)

Another important point: the video above shows a teacher demonstrating verve and drama. If that level of energy doesn’t match your style, don’t worry. You DO NOT need a big performance to make the strategy work.

You can keep it simple and quiet.

Stand at the door. Greet students by name. Perhaps shake their hands. Give them proactive reminders of how to start well.

The volume level doesn’t matter. Your daily personal reconnection with each student does the work.

Constructivism: In The Brain, In The Classroom
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

In this helpfully provocative post, Mike Hobbiss argues that we often misapply the theory of constructivism.

For Hobbiss, the theory makes perfect sense when describing learning. However, he  worries that constructivism is unlikely to be helpful as a theory of pedagogy.

As he argues, drawing on extensive neuroscientific research, we can help students construct their own understandings by creating multiple, partial, and overlapping mental schema.

That kind of “constructivism as learning” might not be best fostered by “constructivism as teaching.”

Hobbiss offers this potentially controversial argument in measured and thoughtful tones. Even if you disagree with him — perhaps especially if you disagree with him — his ideas merit a careful read.

But Does It Work In The Classroom? (A Hint: YES!)
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Teachers who follow brain research have probably heard of “interleaving.”

This teaching strategy encourages us to mix up different kinds of practice problems, rather than sort them tidily into distinct bunches.

Imagine, for instance, that your math curriculum includes these four units:

A: graphing lines

B: calculating the area of circles

C: simplifying expressions

D: solving inequalities

I might be tempted to have have my students review graphing one night. The next night, they would focus on circles. The next, they would simplify expressions. And so forth. (Researchers call this “blocking.”)

Or, I could have them practice all four skills each night. (“Interleaving.”)

So, does blocking or interleaving help students learn better?

One Useful (but Incomplete) Answer

We have “known” the answer to this question for a long time.

The answer is: interleaving. By a lot.

When students interleave while practicing, they learn information more durably.

However, the verb “know” is in quotation marks above because we “know” that answer in a very particular setting.

The best-known research of interleaving took place in a college psychology lab.

Students learned formulas to calculate the volumes of irregular solids. Those who interleaved practice did better on a quiz two weeks later than those who blocked.

To be clear: this is a great study. (I always show it when I talk about interleaving with teachers. The graphs get gasps — really!)

But: does interleaving work for K-12 students? Does it work for anything other than irregular solids?

And, crucially: does it work beyond 2 weeks? We want our students to remember for months — even years. Two weeks is nice, but…we’re actually curious about much longer periods of time.

A Second (Much More Complete) Answer

Doug Rohrer’s team have just published a study looking at real-life interleaving in real-life classrooms.

They worked in five different schools, with fifteen different teachers, and almost 800 7th graders.

And, the test covered quite different topics — the four listed at the top of this post: graphing lines, calculating areas, simplifying expressions, solving inequalities.

And, get this: the study lasted for several MONTHS. From the first interleaved practice set to the final test was something like 145 days.

The results: the students who interleaved remembered more than those who blocked. By a lot.

(If you’re statsy, you’ll be impressed to know that the Cohen’s d averaged 0.68. For an intervention that costs basically nothing, that’s HUGE.)

In addition to these data, Rohrer &  Co. gathered information from an anonymous teacher survey.

They got lots of good news. For instance:

14 teachers agreed (or strongly agreed) that interleaving raises scores.

13 thought it helped low-achieving students. (15 thought it helped high-achieving students.)

11 said they could use interleaving without changing the way they usually teach.

12 said other teachers can do it with little or no instruction.

(Check out page 9 for further survey results.)

Why Does Interleaving Work?

Rohrer’s team offers two answers to this question.

First, interleaved practice automatically produces two other benefits: spacing and retrieval practice.

Second, think for a minute about blocking. If students do practice problems that all require the same strategy (aka, blocking), then they have to execute that strategy. But, as Rohrer points out:

“Interleaved practice requires students to choose a strategy and not merely execute a strategy.”

This additional level of desirable difficulty requires students to practice selecting strategies: an essential part of using learning in the real world.

In Sum:

Rohrer’s study concludes with a few caveats.

Interleaving probably takes (a little) more time than blocking.

It probably has less of an effect over shorter periods of time. That is: you’ll see bigger results on chapter tests and year-end assignments than on weekly quizzes.

Crucially: students probably need a little blocked practice early on to get hold of a topic or concept. We shouldn’t start interleaving while initially explaining an idea.

But, the headlines focus on great news.

Interleaving works with real students in real classrooms. It’s easy to add to our teaching habits. It costs almost nothing. And: it genuinely helps students learn.

 

 

 

More Contradictions in the Adolescent Sleep/Technology Debate
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

A month ago, I described an impressively large study (17,000+ adolescents) looking at the effects of technology on adolescent sleep and well being.

As I summed it up in the title of that post: “Surprise! Screen time (even before bed) doesn’t harm adolescents.”

Today, I’m linking to another large study (6600+ adolescents) showing … just the opposite.

The main findings for this study was that late-night technology use — especially once the room lights were off — predicted a lower “health-related quality of life” for adolescents.

At this point, I’m frankly flummoxed. I just don’t know how to sort out the contradictory research findings in this field.

For the time being, to preserve sanity, I’d keep these main points in mind:

First: don’t panic. The media LOVE to hype stories about this and that terrible result of technology. Most research I see doesn’t bear that out.

Second: don’t focus on averages. Focuses on the child, or the children, in front of you.

Is your teen not getting enough sleep? Try fixing that problem by limiting screen time. If she is getting enough sleep, no need to worry!

Is your student body managing their iPhones well? If yes, it’s all good! If no, then you can develop a policy to make things better.

Until we get clearer and more consistent research findings, I think we should respond — calmly — to the children right in front of us.

Best Font Name Ever: “Sans Forgetica”
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

For well over a decade, teachers have heard that we should strive for the right level of “desirable difficulty.”

In brief: easy learning doesn’t stick. If we want to ensure our students learn material in lasting ways, we need to be sure they wrestle with the material just the right amount.

(Of course, getting to “just the right amount” requires lots of teacherly thought, experience, and wisdom.)

Many years ago, a Princeton undergraduate had an intriguing idea. Maybe we could increase desirable difficulty by using a difficult-to-read font.

His theory went like this. If readers have to concentrate just a little bit more to make sense of what they’re reading, that extra measure of concentration will be a “desirable difficulty.” The result just might be more learning.

He tested his theory in a psych lab. And then — being a thorough sort — he tested it for ten weeks in a nearby high school. The result: students learned more when they read material in a hard-to-read (aka, “disfluent”) font.

Amazing.

Today’s News

Researchers in Australia wanted to take this idea to the next level. They wanted to design an optimally difficult font.

They tried out several different strategies, including:

leaving out parts of letters,

having letters slant the wrong way,

even having parts of letters misalign with each other.

By testing different combinations of these potentially desirable difficulties, they came up with a winner — which they have deliciously dubbed “sans forgetica.”

In two different experiments, students remembered word pairs better when they studied them in sans forgetica, rather than a typically “fluent” font, or in other excessively “disfluent” fonts.

If you’re keen to play with typefaces, you can download that font at the link above.

You can check out their video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PO2Eo6D5tNQ

Reasons to be Cautious

Of course, we should look before we leap.

First: later studies into disfluent fonts have led to decidedly mixed results. According to this meta-analysis, the results average out to zero.

My own hypothesis, as I’ve written here, is that disfluent fonts help only in particular circumstances.

If the cognitive challenges of a problem are already high, then a disfluent font might make them too hard. If the cognitive challenge is quite low, then a disfluent font might raise them to just the right level.

(As far as I know, no one has tested that hypothesis.)

Second: the Australian researchers haven’t published their findings. So, this research hasn’t yet been vetted in the way that research usually gets vetted. (The link above — like all news about sans forgetica — goes to a university press release.)

Third: common sense suggests that disfluent fonts include an important flaw: the more students read a particular font, the more fluent that font will become.

In other words: sans forgetica might start out optimally disfluent. However, over time, students will get used to the font. It will be increasingly fluent the more they use it.

If you want to try disfluent fonts, therefore, I suggest you use them sparingly. You should, I imagine, use them for particularly important information and assignments.

But, to ensure they remain disfluent, you should not have them be a regular part of your students’ reading experience.

To be clear, we have no research guidance at this granular level. As must be true with phrases like “desirable difficulty,” teachers must translate the helpful concept to the specifics of our daily classroom lives.

[A Specific] Movement Helped [Specific] Students Learn [A Specific] Thing
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Can Movement Teach Math?

Here’s a vital question: How can we help young students learn math better?

We’ve got decades of research showing that children who understand a number line do better at many math tasks than those who don’t. In fact, when we teach them to understand the number line, they get better at those math tasks.

Researchers in Germany wondered if movement might help kindergarteners understand the basic principles of a number line.

That is: By moving their whole bodies to the left, they could see numbers get smaller. By moving their whole bodies to the right, they could see numbers get bigger.

Does this kind of bodily movement help children think about numbers and math?

The short answer: yes.

When students compared numbers simply by checking boxes, they didn’t get better at various numerical measurements. When they compared numbers by moving left or right on a dance mat, they did — at least on some measurements.

The specific application of this principle will depend on you and your students. But, to get the conversation started, we can say:

Having kindergarteners manipulate a number line by moving left and right helped them understand some basic math better.

Specifics Matter

I’ve seen lots of enthusiasm lately about movement in classrooms. While I’m all in favor of allowing — even encouraging movement — I think we need to be precise and careful about the arguments for doing so.

The study cited above does NOT show that “movement helps students learn.” Instead, it shows that a particular movement helped particular students learn a particular topic.

Remember, earlier research had showed the importance of the number line. The researchers weren’t testing movement just because movement seemed cool. They tested it because the physical reality of a number line makes this idea so plausible.

Imagine, instead, that the study methodology described above were used to teach students about colors.

Of course, unlike the number line, colors aren’t an especially spatial concept. So, it’s not obvious that this same teaching technique would have benefits for this kind of learning goal.

To be clear: my point is not that movement is a bad idea. Instead, we should understand clearly why this movement will benefit these students while they learn this topic.

Maybe a particular movement fits with a particular cognitive process — as in the number-line example.

Maybe movement helps re-energize droopy students.

Maybe you’ve seen thoughtful research showing that students did better learning parts of speech (say) when they did hand gestures along with them.

In each of these cases, you’ve got a good reason to incorporate movement into the lesson plan. We should not, however, default to a sweeping statement that students must move to learn.

Your own teaching (and learning) experiences may show that — at times — quiet, motionless concentration create the very best learning environment.

 

Sorting Hats, Myers-Briggs, and the Perils of False Classification
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Over at the Hidden Brain podcast, host Shankar Vedantam worries about our habit of sorting people into distinct categories.

When it happens at Hogwarts with a talking hat, such sorting can be cute. When it happens in real life, it can create real damage.

Vedantam, although a skeptic, offers a helpfully balanced exploration of this question. He even interviews a psychologist who worked for the Myers-Briggs Foundation to get the best argument in favor of its responsible use.

Of course, in schools this sorting habit shows up most perniciously with learning styles. Three key points to remember about this theory:

Learning Styles Theory makes specific predictions. Research does not bear them out. To the degree that research can show a theory to be false, this theory is false.

Instead, each of us is a learning style of one.

Luckily, we are more alike than different as learners. We can help students by maintaining optimal (relatively low) levels of stress. And, by reducing distracting stimuli in the classroom. Also, by using strategies that create “desirable difficulties.”

In other words: teachers don’t need to sort students into false categories. Cognitive psychology research helps us teach our students all unsorted, just as they are.

 

Not All of Us Work Effectively in a “Memory Palace”
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

You’ve probably heard of the “method of loci,” or — more glamorously — the “memory palace.”

Here’s how the strategy works. If I want to remember several words, I visualize them along a path that I know well: say, the walk from my house to the square where I do all my shopping.

To recall the words, I simply walk along that path again in my mind. This combination of visuals — the more striking the better — will help me remember even a long list of unrelated words.

This method gets lots of love, most famously in Joshua Foer’s Moonwalking with Einstein.

Surely we should teach it to our students, no?

Palace Boundaries

We always look for boundary conditions here on the blog. That is, even good teaching ideas have limits, and we want to know what’s outside those limits.

So, for the “method of loci,” one question goes like this: how often do you ask your students to memorize long lists of unrelated words?

If the answer is, “not often,” then I’m not sure how much they’ll benefit from building a memory palace.

Dr. Christopher Sanchez wondered about another limit.

The “method of loci” relies on visualization. Not everyone is equally good at that. Does “visuospatial aptitude” influence the usefulness of building a memory palace?

One Answer, Many Questions

The study to answer this question is quite straight-forward. Sanchez had several students memorize words. Some were instructed to use a memory palace; some not. All took tests of their visual aptitude.

Sure enough, as Sanchez predicted, students who used a memory palace remembered more words than those who didn’t.

And, crucially, palace builders with HIGH visualspatial aptitude recalled more words than those with LOW aptitude.

In fact, those with low aptitude said the memory-palace strategy made the memory task much harder.

This research finding offers a specific example of a general truth. Like all teaching strategies, memory palaces may help some students — but they don’t help all students equally.

This finding also leads to some important questions.

First: If a student has low visuospatial aptitude, how can we tell?

At this point, I don’t have an easy way to diagnose that condition. (I’ve asked around, but so far no luck.)

My best advice is: if a student says to you, “I tried that memory palace thing, but it just didn’t work for me. It’s so HARD!” believe the student.

Second: does this finding apply to other visualization strategies? More broadly, does it apply to dual coding theory?

Again, I think the answer is “probably yes.” Making information visual will help some students…but probably not all of them.

The Big Question (I Can’t Look…)

This next question alarms me a little; I hardly dare write it down. But, here goes…

As you know, learning styles theory has been soundly debunked.

However, might Sanchez’s research imply a kind of learning-anti-style?

That is, no one is a “visual learner.” But, perhaps some people don’t learn well from visual cues, and rely more on other ways of taking in information?

In other words: some students might have a diagnosed learning difference. Others might not have a serious enough difference to merit a diagnosis — but nonetheless struggle meaningfully to process information a particular way.

Those students, like Sanchez’s students with low visuospatial aptitude, don’t process information one way, and prefer to use alternate means.

So, again, that’s not so much a “learning style” as a “learning anti-style”: “I prefer anything but visual, please…”

I haven’t seen this question asked, much less investigated. I’ll let you know what I find as I explore it further.