Iversen wrote:I do believe that there are differences between learners, but not necessarily in a way that follows the diagrams set up by pedagogical gurus. I'm willing to believe that these differences mostly are habits rather than caused by our genes, but also that some traits may have a genetic basis or be caused by random influences during pregnancy or whatever. I can see from people I have worked with that they have different preferencies, but why it is like that is a mystery. It is nevertheless relevant to ask how stable such preferencies are, and what happens if you try to force them or lure them to do things differently.
Take for instance wordlists. For me it is a pleasure to do them, and when I read something in a language where I have done them I can recognize many of the words I understand from my lists so I know that the method works - at least for me. I have even made statistical analyses of my learning where I could measure the effect of doing those lists. On the other hand there are excellent language learners who don't use them and who probably would fall asleep or get severely restless if they tried. Instead they claim they learn while doing conversations or reading novels. Maybe we could be forced to change our habits, but so far I haven't seen any scientific proof that you learn better with a method you hate with a vengeance than with one that suits your current set of habits (or whatever you call them).
This doesn't mean that you ONLY should learn using one method. It is unlikely that there only is one pathway into your brain, and getting your input in several different ways should logically be better than just getting it in one way. For instance I know that my wordlists are efficient when it comes to extending my passive vocabulary, but I also know that I need more than wordlists to make those words active - like for instance thinking silently in a language or writing messsages in my log thread or doing L1 -> L2 translations. But what would happen if somebody tried to force me to do chorusing or classroom style acting? Well, I would hate it, and I would not even want to learn anything from such activities.
So I definitely have a learning style, but it is an open question whether it is caused by my genes, by early experiences with people who tried to make me conform or just from my circumstances in general here and now. And even though I recognize that some of systems set up by learning style protagonists sound plausible I also have found things where they simply don't function properly in my case. For instance one of the systems sorts people into those that focus on details and those that prefer dealing with systems and generalizations. For me that's absurd - I focus on details all the time, but when I do so I have constantly some kind of system in my mind where I try to make those details fit. The distinction is rotten in itself, and it would be a surprise if the use of it could give results that would survive a scientific test.
The basic problem with tests on learning styles is that the usual system with a control group and double blind testing is hard to use on something as complicated and all-encompassing as language learning, and instead the researchers study the effect of limited and concrete actions like showing people pictures of dogs while asking them to remember the word for such an odd creature.
Concerning the memorization of related notions: my experience is that you shouldn't try to learn more than maybe two or three parallel words in one go - like the words for three berries or capital cities of African nations. The main exception from this is when each word is so amply illustrated that you effectively are studying a topic instead of just memorizing words.
I tend to engage in mass memorisation of vocabulary, a process Memrise facilitates. You get a morale boost when you encounter a word you learned in reading or elsewhere. I often back Memrise up by writing new words down in notebooks and/or on Post-its. I have a plastic envelope full of the latter, mostly with Greek but also some Spanish vocabulary.