I think you’re quite right. In many ways it’s only natural that educators immediately look to the practical application of a theory within their specific context – this goes for everyone in fact, not just educators. At the same time I think it’s important to avoid this leading to subjectivity, where the validity of a concept is directly related to whether it holds up within one’s context. This constrains the scope and scale of the discussion.

Furthermore, studies like yours and others seem to be suggesting 2 important ideas:

a) the learning experiences – and arguably preferences – of new students are not limited to the classroom;
b) their learning styles are not necessarily consistent with standing beliefs and/or assumptions that provide the basis for much of the structuring of formal education.

This seems to point to a reality in which, like it or not, students are doing things their own way. It would seem logical then that in order to begin to better understand how new ways of learning are occurring – and thus realise effective ways to nurture and empower new learners – we need to look past long-standing structures inherent in formal education.

Rather than equating “learning” to “school”, and couching the discussion in this specific context, we need to equate “learning” to “learning” and leave the discussion open to all forms that it may take. Otherwise by insisting all learning theories conform to existing structures, learning will become dependent on – or constrained by – external forces.

Cheers,

Mike

Cheers, Joost