Perhaps it is a misplaced goal, however in the modern era we have been obsessed with the most efficient way to teach. With the least amount of time and effort, how can a teacher achieve the greatest proficiency? The currently accepted answer is to vary instruction based on learning modalities. Students are visual, auditory or tactile learners, so the conventional wisdom goes, ans a lesson that involves a certian mode of learning will be most effective in teaching a person of a similar mode.

According to Daniel T. Willingham the evidence just doesn't support this idea. In a piece in the Washington Post, Willingham suggests that what really determines how easily someone learns something is a combination of interest and how much related knowledge they already have.

Some lessons click with one child and not with another, but not because of an enduring bias or predisposition in the way the child learns. The lesson clicks or doesn’t because of the knowledge the child brought to the lesson, his interests, or other factors.

If Willingham's proposition is correct, then we have two problems. First, we will actually have to concern ourselves with having interesting and engaging lessons is schools. Second, good teaching will depend not a a formula but on the ability of instructors to gage the interest and knowledge of their students. That means that teacher really do have to be skilled professionals who acquire valuable experience. School districts will not be able to through a commodity instructor in a classroom and expect results.

Learning modalities are dead and with them should die the idea that anyone can be an effective teacher with a pre-made lesson plan and ridged curriculum. Its about time!