Study questions learning-style research
Scientists have yet to prove that students learn better when taught according to their preferred modality, a new study suggests
By Meris Stansbury, Associate Editor
Read more by Meris Stansbury
Teaching to different learning styles, such as visual or auditory, has become widely popular in education.
As educators struggle to define effective 21st-century instruction, one practice that many have viewed as fundamental to teaching and learning has come under new fire: catering to different learning styles.
According to a new review of existing research, scientists have yet to show conclusively that students learn better when they are taught according to their preferred modality—and the study’s authors say it’s time to stop funding a technique that hasn’t been proven effective.
Commissioned by Psychological Science in the Public Interest, the main journal of the Association for Psychological Science, the study is called “Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence.” It was written by Harold Pashler, professor of psychology at the University of California, San Diego; Mark McDaniel, professor of psychology at Washington University in St. Louis; Doug Rohrer, professor of psychology at the University of South Florida; and Robert Bjork, distinguished professor and chair of psychology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
The researchers—all cognitive psychologists with an interest in the science of learning, and how to develop studies so they’re helpful to teachers and students—reviewed all major studies that promoted the effectiveness of teaching to different learning styles to see whether those studies had reached valid conclusions.
The researchers found that, out of thousands of studies purporting to show the effectiveness of teaching to different learning styles, none managed to prove scientifically that students learn better when taught according to their preferred modality.
According to the researchers, if there is no evidence that teaching to different learning styles works, school funds that support learning style assessments and teaching tools should be diverted to support evidence-based teaching practices instead.
“The contrast between the enormous popularity of the learning-styles approach within education and the lack of credible evidence for its utility is, in our opinion, striking and disturbing,” the researchers concluded. “If classification of students’ learning styles has practical utility, it remains to be demonstrated.”
Some advocates of education technology have responded to the researchers’ report with skepticism, arguing that anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise.
“As a parent and former teacher, I wouldn’t be quite so quick to discount teaching to learning styles. All I need to do is look at my son’s learning to know that,” said Don Knezek, chief executive officer of the International Society for Technology in Education.
The report’s findings could have important implications for the ed-tech field, which has benefited from the idea that students learn best in different ways. For example, many educators have used multimedia to differentiate their instruction, so that students who are considered “auditory” learners might listen to a lecture, while those who are considered “visual” learners might watch a video clip of the same information.
Proponents of the learning-style theory believe that effective instruction requires “diagnosing individuals’ learning style and tailoring instruction accordingly,” according to the report. It notes that the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) helped develop a widely distributed learning-style test in the 1980s.
bob@ilearn.com
January 10, 2010 at 10:08 am
Bloodletting was considered “standard medical practice” for over 2000 years until it was finally abandoned only in the 19th century. Is it any wonder that people cling to the fantasy of learning styles in spite of any evidence to support it? Let’s hope it doesn’t take a few more centuries to abandon this mythical notion.
The real tragedy is that adherence to this fiction diverts our focus from providing differentiated instruction based on what students already know and don’t know.
bob@ilearn.com
January 10, 2010 at 10:08 am
Bloodletting was considered “standard medical practice” for over 2000 years until it was finally abandoned only in the 19th century. Is it any wonder that people cling to the fantasy of learning styles in spite of any evidence to support it? Let’s hope it doesn’t take a few more centuries to abandon this mythical notion.
The real tragedy is that adherence to this fiction diverts our focus from providing differentiated instruction based on what students already know and don’t know.
drz646
January 11, 2010 at 5:19 pm
“The research article was similar to others that were commissioned as hatchet jobs to discourage research that was out of fashion. It was not done by educators but by psychologists. Why were there no education professors among the authors.
I am a psychologist and have done extensive work on learning styles, mostly with Rita Dunn who has directed over 100 dissertations many of which were prize winners. I have co-authored about 10 articles with her. Why were none of her research articles included? They did include one soft article she published on the theory of learning styles.
The authors had a rather narrow view of learning styles and limited it to a perceptual input type of model which is a rather limited view of the whole area.
As a Psychologist I hate to think that my colleagues only considered psychology articles as worthy of consideration in an educational field.”
drz646
January 11, 2010 at 5:19 pm
“The research article was similar to others that were commissioned as hatchet jobs to discourage research that was out of fashion. It was not done by educators but by psychologists. Why were there no education professors among the authors.
I am a psychologist and have done extensive work on learning styles, mostly with Rita Dunn who has directed over 100 dissertations many of which were prize winners. I have co-authored about 10 articles with her. Why were none of her research articles included? They did include one soft article she published on the theory of learning styles.
The authors had a rather narrow view of learning styles and limited it to a perceptual input type of model which is a rather limited view of the whole area.
As a Psychologist I hate to think that my colleagues only considered psychology articles as worthy of consideration in an educational field.”
pcoyne
January 11, 2010 at 5:19 pm
I noticed that there were no links to find out more about UDL. CAST developed this work and so a great source of information is their web site. http://www.cast.org
pcoyne
January 11, 2010 at 5:19 pm
I noticed that there were no links to find out more about UDL. CAST developed this work and so a great source of information is their web site. http://www.cast.org
teachmad
January 11, 2010 at 5:20 pm
“Let’s give publishing its due, and all those who succumb to the publish or perish demands their credit…for providing more garbage we, at one time or another, have considered RESEARCH! It’s easy to call a game from the sidelines, the bleachers, or the tube, but how about trying the “”research”" out in the trenches with validation that accepts competing views and practice?
There are good researchers, and there are great researchers–some think it all depends upon how much funding is brought in by the research, while others know, it’s about the quality of the experimental design, integrity to controlling variables, and thought for implications of the results.
One course back in time should allow many of thought to recall a time when he/she was “”persuaded”" to drop a line of intellectual thought for the “”correct”" version of the day. Some research today is flavor of just that stench.
Thank goodness for the free mind, but the political pockets are to be concerned because the mind hasn’t frequently shown great depth in this arena and some could be persuaded back to the “”basics”"…which got everyone where they are today! A last point…
The one room school house is not a “”back-to-basics approach as some researchers might believe–it is a simple way of life whose complexities emerge after analysis of the time period in relation to where we are now. So, I postulate–the one room school house had a teacher (sometimes adept and caring; sometimes, adept and frigid; and some in between). One thing is for certain these teachers (quasi-researchers) knew each child, and family, they formed biases, or assumptions based upon performances, they studied alongside multi-aged students, broke for lunch, had recess, played song and games, created pieces of art work, and everything else we currently sub out to many different professionals because of what “”research”" has shown us to do in classrooms. What a crock of mayo!
We have given publishing “”researchers”" too much credit for the commerce they provide. If we want education to succeed for every child, then listen to those who are closest to it, and who strive everyday to teach students, parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and foster parents how to assist with the current task. Ask quality teachers–not as evidenced by high test scores, but by the quality of the students in terms of academics, behavior, and attendance. Ask those who teach severe needs mental health students alongside esl, ell, poor nourished, poverty ridden, happy-to-be-alive students what it is they need, and you will find the answer–stop the constant peddling of published, researched garbage into schools, and the forcing of all students to follow a path of failure that shows success on minimalistic assessments ANYONE should be able to teach to and for to get the desired results. A 100% researched validated program with 0% buy-in from teachers gets you a 0% gain. A marginally acceptable program with a teacher who cares for students and strives to make them the best will get SOMETHING so great, that numeric grades could never reach their heights.
So, let’s give research its due, but promote more common sense first. BTWFYI–learning styles was not meant to be so critically applied until RESEARCHERS got their paws into it–it is one of many indicator tools that allow for the numerous adaptations teachers make to their classrooms every year based upon student interests, “”styles”", interactions, environment, and etc.”
teachmad
January 11, 2010 at 5:20 pm
“Let’s give publishing its due, and all those who succumb to the publish or perish demands their credit…for providing more garbage we, at one time or another, have considered RESEARCH! It’s easy to call a game from the sidelines, the bleachers, or the tube, but how about trying the “”research”" out in the trenches with validation that accepts competing views and practice?
There are good researchers, and there are great researchers–some think it all depends upon how much funding is brought in by the research, while others know, it’s about the quality of the experimental design, integrity to controlling variables, and thought for implications of the results.
One course back in time should allow many of thought to recall a time when he/she was “”persuaded”" to drop a line of intellectual thought for the “”correct”" version of the day. Some research today is flavor of just that stench.
Thank goodness for the free mind, but the political pockets are to be concerned because the mind hasn’t frequently shown great depth in this arena and some could be persuaded back to the “”basics”"…which got everyone where they are today! A last point…
The one room school house is not a “”back-to-basics approach as some researchers might believe–it is a simple way of life whose complexities emerge after analysis of the time period in relation to where we are now. So, I postulate–the one room school house had a teacher (sometimes adept and caring; sometimes, adept and frigid; and some in between). One thing is for certain these teachers (quasi-researchers) knew each child, and family, they formed biases, or assumptions based upon performances, they studied alongside multi-aged students, broke for lunch, had recess, played song and games, created pieces of art work, and everything else we currently sub out to many different professionals because of what “”research”" has shown us to do in classrooms. What a crock of mayo!
We have given publishing “”researchers”" too much credit for the commerce they provide. If we want education to succeed for every child, then listen to those who are closest to it, and who strive everyday to teach students, parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and foster parents how to assist with the current task. Ask quality teachers–not as evidenced by high test scores, but by the quality of the students in terms of academics, behavior, and attendance. Ask those who teach severe needs mental health students alongside esl, ell, poor nourished, poverty ridden, happy-to-be-alive students what it is they need, and you will find the answer–stop the constant peddling of published, researched garbage into schools, and the forcing of all students to follow a path of failure that shows success on minimalistic assessments ANYONE should be able to teach to and for to get the desired results. A 100% researched validated program with 0% buy-in from teachers gets you a 0% gain. A marginally acceptable program with a teacher who cares for students and strives to make them the best will get SOMETHING so great, that numeric grades could never reach their heights.
So, let’s give research its due, but promote more common sense first. BTWFYI–learning styles was not meant to be so critically applied until RESEARCHERS got their paws into it–it is one of many indicator tools that allow for the numerous adaptations teachers make to their classrooms every year based upon student interests, “”styles”", interactions, environment, and etc.”
rsurland
January 11, 2010 at 5:20 pm
You can’t simply discount the findings of 1000 studies with one that claims all others are invalid. Thank goodness a high number of educators are also researchers and know better!
rsurland
January 11, 2010 at 5:20 pm
You can’t simply discount the findings of 1000 studies with one that claims all others are invalid. Thank goodness a high number of educators are also researchers and know better!
s.aldred
January 11, 2010 at 5:30 pm
“The meta research study reported appears to be part of a concerted attack by those who see the no scientific research argument as a way to discredit highly effective ways of learning design.
Human educational research is not like delivering a treatment to monkeys and observing the effects of that and a control group. Ethical clearance, thankfully, stop most of these kinds of studies from occurring so the kinds of educational research we can conduct rarely lead to large scale quantitative studies which the research appears to be asserting is “”real”" research. In a real setting it is impossible to control for all variables as can occur in a lab setting.
As a teacher educator I require my students to undertake Felder & Solomon’s Psychometrically validated instrument, ILS and to where possible undertake this with their own students. I ask them to do this because it is important that they are aware of the kinds of learning styles and preferences their students are likely to have and to tailor their instruction/learning design to cater for all styles.
The universal design argument is a sound approach and as one commenter (trainer12) has remarked, despite the researchers’ claims, very little instruction in schools and industry (in Australia & US) take the least notice of variances in learning styles and preferences when designing their instruction. The ones that do have outstanding results.
My final points relates to the measurement of learning. We can quantitatively measure recall and understanding reasonably well, but what about application and the higher order cognitive thinking? Also, what about 21st century skills? Why aren’t these studies seeking to measure these as many research studies have found that graduates and employers value these at least as much as content knowledge.
Let’s stop giving these kinds of studies any airplay and concentrate on engaging our students to the top levels of Blooms Taxonomy, even the modified version where Creativity is the highest level.”
s.aldred
January 11, 2010 at 5:30 pm
“The meta research study reported appears to be part of a concerted attack by those who see the no scientific research argument as a way to discredit highly effective ways of learning design.
Human educational research is not like delivering a treatment to monkeys and observing the effects of that and a control group. Ethical clearance, thankfully, stop most of these kinds of studies from occurring so the kinds of educational research we can conduct rarely lead to large scale quantitative studies which the research appears to be asserting is “”real”" research. In a real setting it is impossible to control for all variables as can occur in a lab setting.
As a teacher educator I require my students to undertake Felder & Solomon’s Psychometrically validated instrument, ILS and to where possible undertake this with their own students. I ask them to do this because it is important that they are aware of the kinds of learning styles and preferences their students are likely to have and to tailor their instruction/learning design to cater for all styles.
The universal design argument is a sound approach and as one commenter (trainer12) has remarked, despite the researchers’ claims, very little instruction in schools and industry (in Australia & US) take the least notice of variances in learning styles and preferences when designing their instruction. The ones that do have outstanding results.
My final points relates to the measurement of learning. We can quantitatively measure recall and understanding reasonably well, but what about application and the higher order cognitive thinking? Also, what about 21st century skills? Why aren’t these studies seeking to measure these as many research studies have found that graduates and employers value these at least as much as content knowledge.
Let’s stop giving these kinds of studies any airplay and concentrate on engaging our students to the top levels of Blooms Taxonomy, even the modified version where Creativity is the highest level.”
trainer12
January 11, 2010 at 5:37 pm
From my own experience as both a faculty member in academia and as professional management development trainer, I think that this study is very limited in it’s scope. For too long educators have ignored learning styles, let alone teaching styles. One size fits all style of teaching and learning has missed the boat for too many learners. Lecture or auditory with some visual is not the only style to teach and learn. It all depends on the outcome expected for the learner and the content. Assessment can’t only be limited to paper and pencil tests with just written or verbal questions. Hasn’t special education and people with disabilities taught us anything about how people learn? I think that this study set out to discredit or debunk learning styles and it became a self fulling prophecy. Learning is such a complex thing. It is like the story of blind people being led into the room and asked to describe an elephant and they all touched a different part of the elephant. Not one of the persons kinestic perception gave a complete picture of the animal. Learning styles isn’t the only aspect or process of learning, just one part. But to discredit it by one study, I think sets understanding of learning and education backward.
trainer12
January 11, 2010 at 5:37 pm
From my own experience as both a faculty member in academia and as professional management development trainer, I think that this study is very limited in it’s scope. For too long educators have ignored learning styles, let alone teaching styles. One size fits all style of teaching and learning has missed the boat for too many learners. Lecture or auditory with some visual is not the only style to teach and learn. It all depends on the outcome expected for the learner and the content. Assessment can’t only be limited to paper and pencil tests with just written or verbal questions. Hasn’t special education and people with disabilities taught us anything about how people learn? I think that this study set out to discredit or debunk learning styles and it became a self fulling prophecy. Learning is such a complex thing. It is like the story of blind people being led into the room and asked to describe an elephant and they all touched a different part of the elephant. Not one of the persons kinestic perception gave a complete picture of the animal. Learning styles isn’t the only aspect or process of learning, just one part. But to discredit it by one study, I think sets understanding of learning and education backward.
tom burkard
January 11, 2010 at 5:37 pm
“I frequently deliver seminars to special needs teachers, and I’ve all but given up trying to explain why the ‘learning styles’ myth is one of the most destructive notions to captivate the modern mind. The evidence has been there for a long time: in 1990, Marilyn Jager Adams reviewed the evidence in her ground-breaking work, “”Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print”". She was unable to find any evidence demonstrating improved outcomes for designing lessons to suit children’s perceived ‘learning styles’. It’s not that some children don’t have strong preferences for visual, auditory or kinesthetic learning–it’s just that we need to use all of the senses together. There is very strong evidence for using a multi-sensory approach to learning, especially when teaching children with learning difficulties: this dates back to the work of Samuel Orton in the 1930s.
I pity the poor teacher who wastes countless hours ‘personalising’ learning in response to this pernicious fallacy. Their time would be far better spent ensuring that the content of their lessons engage the intellect, and not the senses. As Dan Willingham has pointed out, learning is not stored as sensory input; rather, it registers because it has meaning. This should be obvious to anyone with the slightest acquaintance with serious cognitive studies.”
tom burkard
January 11, 2010 at 5:37 pm
“I frequently deliver seminars to special needs teachers, and I’ve all but given up trying to explain why the ‘learning styles’ myth is one of the most destructive notions to captivate the modern mind. The evidence has been there for a long time: in 1990, Marilyn Jager Adams reviewed the evidence in her ground-breaking work, “”Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print”". She was unable to find any evidence demonstrating improved outcomes for designing lessons to suit children’s perceived ‘learning styles’. It’s not that some children don’t have strong preferences for visual, auditory or kinesthetic learning–it’s just that we need to use all of the senses together. There is very strong evidence for using a multi-sensory approach to learning, especially when teaching children with learning difficulties: this dates back to the work of Samuel Orton in the 1930s.
I pity the poor teacher who wastes countless hours ‘personalising’ learning in response to this pernicious fallacy. Their time would be far better spent ensuring that the content of their lessons engage the intellect, and not the senses. As Dan Willingham has pointed out, learning is not stored as sensory input; rather, it registers because it has meaning. This should be obvious to anyone with the slightest acquaintance with serious cognitive studies.”
lbeverage
January 11, 2010 at 5:38 pm
I think the concern is that educators will latch onto a belief that a student (or group of them) are, let’s say, auditory learners and then lean heavily (and some almost entirely) on that mode of “input” and cease to thoroughly stimulate learners in different ways. Also, it is entirely possible for a student to gain knowledge in one content area through one mode of learning and in a different content area through and different mode. —Also…learning styles for a person/child can change over time. It’s not a “OK, Bobby is a visual learner, so we’ll take care of him that way” sort of thing. — I’ve experienced educators who came to a “dx” of learning style and then taught using almost solely that method. –Rather, we ought to be using all the “input modes” in order to create learners who are more well rounded. Shouldn’t it be a case of not “dxing” a child’s style but rather, “dxing” the method of content presentation and “rxing” a shift of teaching so that more modalities of learning are used?—Just thoughts.
lbeverage
January 11, 2010 at 5:38 pm
I think the concern is that educators will latch onto a belief that a student (or group of them) are, let’s say, auditory learners and then lean heavily (and some almost entirely) on that mode of “input” and cease to thoroughly stimulate learners in different ways. Also, it is entirely possible for a student to gain knowledge in one content area through one mode of learning and in a different content area through and different mode. —Also…learning styles for a person/child can change over time. It’s not a “OK, Bobby is a visual learner, so we’ll take care of him that way” sort of thing. — I’ve experienced educators who came to a “dx” of learning style and then taught using almost solely that method. –Rather, we ought to be using all the “input modes” in order to create learners who are more well rounded. Shouldn’t it be a case of not “dxing” a child’s style but rather, “dxing” the method of content presentation and “rxing” a shift of teaching so that more modalities of learning are used?—Just thoughts.
carrie.bisgard
January 11, 2010 at 5:38 pm
I understand that a lot of research that comes out in our field is not what we would like it to be, but I think it’s hard to argue that presenting a concept three different ways in a classroom is a bad thing. Whether you are doing it to accommodate different learning styles or just to combat boredom is sort of besides the point, don’t you think?
carrie.bisgard
January 11, 2010 at 5:38 pm
I understand that a lot of research that comes out in our field is not what we would like it to be, but I think it’s hard to argue that presenting a concept three different ways in a classroom is a bad thing. Whether you are doing it to accommodate different learning styles or just to combat boredom is sort of besides the point, don’t you think?