Originally Posted by JRN
I don't know if a MB assesment of a student is practical or even accuate, but knowing that there are different learning/personality types, and that each type may respond better to different forms of instruction will help me choose what process may work best for a given student.
My lessons use a simple process, that has been glamorized as creating a "concrete experience". That is: "say it, show it, do it, review the results. repeat with changes as required".
This has elements of all learning styles. In the effort to review the results, if you have determined that some folks just are not getting it, you may have to resort to more invasive means, like physically repositioning the body, or adding static exercises or rephrasing the drill from a different perspective or otherwise ensure the goals are clear.
If you used guided discovery as a tool, the review is a critical element where you guide the process towards a repeat of the drill or a new and perhaps more appropriate drill and perhaps even change focus. I usually use a minimum of two repetitions of a drill before changing it, unless the first drill was extremely unsuccessful, then we'll switch to groundwork right away.
nolo, I am simply suggesting that an in-depth personality profile is not all that important, and can be detrimental if misused. I'm saying that the methodology that we use to teach should not need deep insight into the student.
In particular, "the concrete experience" addresses all learning styles because it is believed that everyone needs to visit each learning style in order to truly learn the subject.
IMO, to limit your teaching to dwell on certain types of learning styles abandons "the concrete experience" and therefore is less efficacious, regardless of the students personality profile.