Teach Effectively!

I came across yet another reference to “learning styles” on the Internet. This one comes from a home-schooling blog called Joyful Mother Teaches and the entry is entitled “Learning Style (William).” Becky, who goes by “Joyful Mother,” descibed one of her two children this way:

You are a Kinesthetic Learner. You like to move. You feel blindfolded when you have to sit still at a table for hours. Anyone who calls you hyperactive, just doesn’t understand that moving your large muscle groups helps your brain to process information.

Despite its intuitive appeal, there is a distinct lack of evidence for basing teaching on putative modality learning styles (visual, auditory, kinesthetic, etc.). I’ll need to provide more depth about these matters in a later post, but here’s the quick version, in hopes fewer people will get fooled by the learning styles bologna.

1. How do we know that there are different learning styles? Is there dependable research documenting them?—Nope. There’s a lot of literature advocating the idea, but I know of no large-scale studies using trustworthy instruments that show different modality-based learning styles. At best, there are a few self-report studies showing that people say they have particular learning styles.
2. How can we identify an individual’s learning style? Are there trustworthy tests to differentiate styles?—Nope. There are a host of tests that claim to identify different learning styles, but (a) none of them have the reliability needed for making decisions about people. In fact, few of the available tests even report their reliability. Furthermore, I know of (b) no learning styles test or inventory that has documented its validity, that is, that has shown that the differences it reveals among people are systematically related to other reliably documented differences in those people.
3. How can we use learning style information to improve learning? Doesn’t research show that differentiating instruction on the basis of learning styles improves kids’ outcomes?—Nope. Sorry. Despite the protests of a few people (some of whom make a living from selling learning styles to educators and others), the most careful analyses of scores of studies show that (a) visual learners acquire reading skills no better when given supposedly visual instruction than they do when given supposed auditory instruction, or (b) auditory learners do not benefit differentially from getting auditory instruction. That is, when one matches the instruction to the learners’ putative learning styles, one does not get better outcomes.

My remarks here are limited to to learning styles in relation to early reading instruction. Some will be interested in learning styles’ effects on learning in other areas (e.g., foreign language), and I encourge them to apply scientific standards to the examination of evidence in those areas. Do the instruments for differentiating learners meet standards for reliability and validity? Do different instruction methods actually exist (that is, is a visual method actually different from an auditory method)? Do learners with different styles actually have greater outcomes when matched to their styles than when not matched? These are the fundamental questions. Let the evidence about each speak.

Link to Joyful Mother’s post.

Sources

Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1987). Substance over style: Assessing the efficacy of modality testing and teaching. Exceptional Children 54, 228–239.

Snider, V. E. (1992). Learning styles and learning to read: A critique. Remedial and Special Education 13, 6–18.

Stahl, S. (1999, Fall). Different strokes for different folks? A critique of learning styles. American Educator, 27-31.

Tarver, S. & Dawson, M. M. (1978). Modality preference and the teaching of reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities 11, 17–29.

Ysseldyke, J. (1973). [chapter title]. In D. A. Sabatino & L. Mann (Eds.), First review of special education (pp. 1-??). Philadelphia, PA: JSE Press.