Learning Styles

The term “learning styles” refers to the concept that individuals differ in regard to what mode of instruction or study is most effective for them. Proponents of learning-style assessment contend that optimal instruction requires diagnosing individuals' learning style and tailoring instruction accordingly. Assessments of learning style typically ask people to evaluate what sort of information presentation they prefer (e.g., words versus pictures versus speech) and/or what kind of mental activity they find most engaging or congenial (e.g., analysis versus listening), although assessment instruments are extremely diverse. The most common—but not the only—hypothesis about the instructional relevance of learning styles is the meshing hypothesis, according to which instruction is best provided in a format that matches the preferences of the learner (e.g., for a “visual learner,” emphasizing visual presentation of information). The learning-styles view has acquired great influence within the education field, and is frequently encountered at levels ranging from kindergarten to graduate school. There is a thriving industry devoted to publishing learning-styles tests and guidebooks for teachers, and many organizations offer professional development workshops for teachers and educators built around the concept of learning styles. The authors of the present review were charged with determining whether these practices are supported by scientific evidence. We concluded that any credible validation of learning-styles-based instruction requires robust documentation of a very particular type of experimental finding with several necessary criteria. First, students must be divided into groups on the basis of their learning styles, and then students from each group must be randomly assigned to receive one of multiple instructional methods. Next, students must then sit for a final test that is the same for all students. Finally, in order to demonstrate that optimal learning requires that students receive instruction tailored to their putative learning style, the experiment must reveal a specific type of interaction between learning style and instructional method: Students with one learning style achieve the best educational outcome when given an instructional method that differs from the instructional method producing the best outcome for students with a different learning style. In other words, the instructional method that proves most effective for students with one learning style is not the most effective method for students with a different learning style. Our review of the literature disclosed ample evidence that children and adults will, if asked, express preferences about how they prefer information to be presented to them. There is also plentiful evidence arguing that people differ in the degree to which they have some fairly specific aptitudes for different kinds of thinking and for processing different types of information. However, we found virtually no evidence for the interaction pattern mentioned above, which was judged to be a precondition for validating the educational applications of learning styles. Although the literature on learning styles is enormous, very few studies have even used an experimental methodology capable of testing the validity of learning styles applied to education. Moreover, of those that did use an appropriate method, several found results that flatly contradict the popular meshing hypothesis. We conclude therefore, that at present, there is no adequate evidence base to justify incorporating learning-styles assessments into general educational practice. Thus, limited education resources would better be devoted to adopting other educational practices that have a strong evidence base, of which there are an increasing number. However, given the lack of methodologically sound studies of learning styles, it would be an error to conclude that all possible versions of learning styles have been tested and found wanting; many have simply not been tested at all. Further research on the use of learning-styles assessment in instruction may in some cases be warranted, but such research needs to be performed appropriately.

[1]  Daniel T. Willingham,et al.  Why Don't Students Like School?: A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions About How the Mind Works and What It Means for the Classroom , 2009 .

[2]  David A Cook,et al.  Lack of interaction between sensing–intuitive learning styles and problem-first versus information-first instruction: a randomized crossover trial , 2009, Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice.

[3]  R. Sternberg,et al.  Styles of Learning and Thinking Matter in Instruction and Assessment , 2008, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[4]  M. Kozhevnikov Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychology: toward an integrated framework of cognitive style. , 2007, Psychological bulletin.

[5]  Mark A. McDaniel,et al.  The benefits of embedded question adjuncts for low and high structure builders. , 2007 .

[6]  J. Twenge Generation Me: Why Today's Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled--and More Miserable Than Ever Before , 2006 .

[7]  Fofi Constantinidou,et al.  Stimulus modality and verbal learning performance in normal aging , 2002, Brain and Language.

[8]  Robin K. Henson,et al.  Variability and Prediction of Measurement Error in Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory Scores a Reliability Generalization Study , 2002 .

[9]  J. Ormrod Educational Psychology : Developing Learners , 1997 .

[10]  R. Owens In the mind's eye: Enhancing human performance , 1993 .

[11]  R. Schmidt,et al.  New Conceptualizations of Practice: Common Principles in Three Paradigms Suggest New Concepts for Training , 1992 .

[12]  Daniel Druckman,et al.  In the Mind's Eye: Enhancing Human Performance , 1992 .

[13]  Morton Ann Gernsbacher,et al.  Language Comprehension As Structure Building , 1990 .

[14]  John T. Wilson,et al.  The interaction of verbal ability with concept mapping in learning from a chemistry laboratory activity , 1990 .

[15]  Lorne Olfman,et al.  The Importance of Learning Style in End-User Training , 1990, MIS Q..

[16]  Ronald R. Sims,et al.  The Reliability and Classification Stability of the Learning Style Inventory in Corporate Settings , 1987 .

[17]  Ronald R. Sims,et al.  The Reliability and Classification Stability of the Learning Style Inventory , 1986 .

[18]  P. Freebody,et al.  ACHIEVEMENT OUTCOMES OF TWO READING PROGRAMMES: AN INSTANCE Of APTITUDE-TREATMENT INTERACTION , 1985 .

[19]  C. Marmar Conitive Styles: Essence and Origins , 1982 .

[20]  V. Horak,et al.  The Influence of Student Locus of Control and Teaching Method on Mathematics Achievement. , 1982 .

[21]  P. Peterson,et al.  Aptitude-Treatment Interaction Effects of Variations in Direct Instruction , 1981 .

[22]  Douglas B. McLeod,et al.  Locus of Control and Mathematics Instruction: Three Exploratory Studies. , 1980 .

[23]  Russell H. Yeany,et al.  The Effects of Diagnostic-Prescriptive Instruction and Locus of Control on the Achievement and Attitudes of University Students. , 1980 .

[24]  Willis J. Horak,et al.  Influence of Instructional Structure and Locus of Control on Achievement of Preservice Elementary Science Teachers. , 1980 .

[25]  P. Peterson,et al.  Aptitude-Treatment Interaction Effects of Three Social Studies Teaching Approaches , 1980 .

[26]  J. Greene Individual and Teacher/Class Effects in Aptitude Treatment Studies , 1980 .

[27]  P. Peterson Aptitude × treatment interaction effects on teacher structuring and student participation in college instruction , 1979 .

[28]  James P. Stevens,et al.  The Interaction Between The Internal—External Locus of Control and Two Methods of College Instruction , 1976 .

[29]  J. Forward,et al.  Interactive effects of teaching strategy and personal locus of control on student performance and satisfaction. , 1975 .

[30]  C. Adcock,et al.  Primary Mental Abilities. , 1971, The Journal of general psychology.

[31]  J. Ross,et al.  AN ASSESSMENT OF SOME STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES OF THE JUNGIAN PERSONALITY TYPOLOGY. , 1962, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[32]  L. Cronbach The two disciplines of scientific psychology. , 1957 .

[33]  C. Spearman,et al.  "THE ABILITIES OF MAN". , 1928, Science.

[34]  R. Mayer,et al.  Testing the ATI hypothesis: Should multimedia instruction accommodate verbalizer-visualizer cognitive style? ! , 2006 .

[35]  Jeffrey D. Karpicke,et al.  The Power of Testing Memory Basic Research and Implications for Educational Practice , 2006 .

[36]  F. Coffield Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: a systematic and critical review , 2004 .

[37]  K. Ecclestone,et al.  Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning , 2004 .

[38]  Elena L. Grigorenko,et al.  A Triarchic Analysis of an Aptitude-Treatment Interaction , 1999 .

[39]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Are Good Texts Always Better? Interactions of Text Coherence, Background Knowledge, and Levels of Understanding in Learning From Text , 1996 .

[40]  R. Chartock,et al.  Identifying Local Links to the World. , 1991 .

[41]  L. Curry A Critique of the Research on Learning Styles. , 1990 .

[42]  Rita Dunn,et al.  Rita Dunn Answers Questions on Learning Styles. , 1990 .

[43]  Thomas R. Post,et al.  Cognitive restructuring ability, teacher guidance and perceptual distracter tasks: An aptitude, treatment, interaction study , 1989 .

[44]  James W. Keefe,et al.  Profiling and Utilizing Learning Style. NASSP Learning Style Series. , 1988 .

[45]  H. Eysenck Cognitive styles: Essence and origins: Herman A. Witkin and Donald R. Goodenough International Universities Press, New York (1981). 141 pp. , 1982 .

[46]  Alan Richardson,et al.  Verbalizer-visualizer: A cognitive style dimension. , 1977 .

[47]  J. Rotter Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. , 1966, Psychological monographs.