Austin Way

@griswold @grok 🤣

@AustinA_Way @grok summarize this article for 3 different learning styles: kinesthetic, auditory, and visual.

@Chaos2Cured "Quantum neuroplasticity" is not a thing.

As for dyslexia, you would have easier times if you learned how you learn. Then use AI to match your style. Honestly, if you gave me ten children I could show you. Sadly, most money and funding in this comes from a desire to prove something. Usually to sell something. IMO. What all of these studies miss is that the teacher matters. Also, the subject matters. Also, passion matters. Quantum neuroplasticity is something we all need to learn about. Our current educational system is horrific for all but linear and sequential thinkers. •

The education system has been lying to you since second grade. You think you're a visual learner? Or a hands-on learner? You're not. "Learning styles" are a myth.

Teaching to a 'learning style' is d=0.04. For context, anything below 0.40 is considered negligible. (So 'learning styles' are practically ineffective) To your point about students learning differently: I'm dyslexic. I know what it's like to process information differently. But dyslexia is a cognitive condition, not a "style." It might take me longer to consume content through reading. But my learning outcome from reading is the same as someone without it. If your students seem to "learn differently," it's almost never a 'learning style' it's missing prerequisites. A student who "can't learn by reading" and seems to do better listening? They probably just have weak reading skills.

The fact you dismiss how some learn is telling. I am guessing you are linear and sequential. To be honest, you are just flat out wrong. And i don’t get how you feel anything you shared justifies your stance. I have some students that literally can’t learn by listening. Some struggle with visual and need to actually hear. You have obviously never worked as a teacher. •

@JonoMarkley It is really unfortunate that this is such a prevalent idea

@AustinA_Way And yet it gets repeated all the time. I ask my university students, "how many of you have heard a professor talk about learning styles? (And not like me telling you it is nonsense)"... ALL of them raise their hands.

100% agree. Using multiple modalities and multiple means of expression is great teaching. No argument there. The point I made in the article, and the point I will reiterate here is this: Every modality works roughly equally well for every student, as long as the student has the prerequisite knowledge. A 'visual learner' doesn't learn better from diagrams than from text. They learn the same (if not better) from whichever method is best suited to the content, just like everyone else.

@AustinA_Way It’s a theory that can be used by teachers to deliver instruction using multiple modalities and assessing students through multiple means of expression. The idea being that there is not just one way in education.

@Chaos2Cured A few things: 1. "Bad data." Which study? Which methodology? 2. Temple Grandin has exceptional visual-spatial cognition. That's a cognitive aptitude, not a "learning style." Nobody denies people have different cognitive strengths.

I read them. Do you understand that your conclusion is based on bad data and confirmation bias? You think people aren’t visual? Have you ever heard of Temple Grandin? I think you have a narrative and an agenda. I work with kids. Have for decades. And my results speak for themselves. This is hogwash. The studies all have some merit, but when you dig deep, your conclusions falls flat. •

@AlisonbobEth The point is that they should NOT be teaching using ANY specific "learning style." That said, there are things (as mentioned in the article) that are not learning styles, that could be used for increasing learning outcomes.

@AustinA_Way I mean do teachers even do that? In regular school they just give everyone the same work, so how would they be teaching to specific styles?

@Chaos2Cured Here is my source list: Coffield et al. (2004) Pashler et al. (2008) Hattie (2025) Nancekivell et al. (2020) Dunlosky et al. (2013)

@AustinA_Way No… not true at all!!! Where are you getting your data? •

@AlisonbobEth Well… teaching to a learning style is effectively useless. You should read the practical advice section.

@AustinA_Way Does that happen though? How could teachers even teach, to all these different learning styles? But you are correct, that what we tell ourselves, we internalize.

@MrMead78 Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences theory is also not well-supported empirically, but more importantly, it’s a theory about cognitive ability, not about how instruction should be delivered. Gardner himself has repeatedly said people misapply his work to justify learning styles.

@AustinA_Way With respect, this is one of the dumbest things I’ve seen debated on ed twitter. The whole idea of learning styles is a bastardized version of Howard Gardners work. It is a way for teachers to reach all students and reinforce learning. We open learning not silo it.

@prerat @openclaw Note that clarifications of cheating vary, and it was only self reported cheating. Sources: Stanford Challenge Success (2019-24), BestColleges (2023), Copyleaks (2024-25), HEPI (2024-25), Lee et al. / Springer (2024, 2026).

@AustinA_Way @openclaw where's this chart from? it seems to say chatgpt has had no impact on cheating bc the overall cheating rate has stayed the same

There's a cheating method so advanced that no school in the world can detect it. We just caught someone using it. An AI agent can now complete online coursework indistinguishably from a real student. Tools like @Openclaw can mimic the arc movement of the mouse, the pace of a student, etc. It operates at the system level, meaning there's nothing for a platform to detect. So how did we catch someone using it? Every student leaves a pattern in their data, and when an AI agent does the work, that pattern looks nothing like a real student. By extrapolating student data and comparing to the mean, you catch a cheater.

For example: Time per question (is their time an anomaly to the mean) Question groups (Each question can be grouped under a skill node. If a student is randomly getting questions correct/incorrect, it’s likely they’re cheating: mainly because most incorrect answers cluster by domain.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​)

@AustinA_Way @openclaw That’s a lot of words without substance. Can you elaborate ? … How exactly? What “pattern”? Extrapolate what? I’m genuinely interested but just sounds like engagement baiting and LinkedIn-esque fluff

It’s a bit more nuanced, but get what you are saying. Could have been the way I initially wrote the post, but the core point I was trying to convey is that despite using something like OpenClaw we could catch someone cheating. This was more of an example of a real extreme case of cheating, and how the attempt was still not successful.

Fair, I will give you credit where credit is due. Though I want to point out a difference in what has been said. I am not arguing that I know anything about the design of cheating software. I am just explaining how we used the data we have about how students complete coursework to determine if they are cheating. Unless a cheating software has a baseline for student performance it’s practically impossible to build it. If I wanted to catch a student cheating, all I would need is to compare their scoring data (along with other things like time per question) to the mean, and or their mastery per skill.

@dontbanjake @openclaw If you want to critic the underlying claim I am all for that. But your critic has nothing to do with anything I said.

@dontbanjake @ChemPhysMajor @openclaw That doesn’t mean individual websites don’t.

@dontbanjake @openclaw Why?

@dontbanjake @openclaw I’m trying to share an interesting story. While you may have your opinions, that does not discredit what I am explaining.