Writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education under the headline “Matching Teaching Style to Learning Style May Not Help Students,” David Glenn describes the hook of a forth-coming paper the examines the popular, but unsupported, notion that instruction must be differentiated according to personal characteristics of the learners.
If you’ve ever sat through a teaching seminar, you’ve probably heard a lecture about “learning styles.” Perhaps you were told that some students are visual learners, some are auditory learners, and others are kinesthetic learners. Or maybe you were given one of the dozens of other learning-style taxonomies that scholars and consultants have developed.
Almost certainly, you were told that your instruction should match your students’ styles. For example, kinesthetic learners—students who learn best through hands-on activities—are said to do better in classes that feature plenty of experiments, while verbal learners are said to do worse.
Now four psychologists argue that you were told wrong. There is no strong scientific evidence to support the “matching” idea, they contend in a paper published this week in Psychological Science in the Public Interest. And there is absolutely no reason for professors to adopt it in the classroom.
From my skim of it, the paper by Professor Harold Pashler and colleagues establishes the standard by which researchers should test hypotheses about learning styles and then reviews the evidence that meets that standard. They find the evidence wanting.
Like a good journalist, Mr. Glenn found some well-known folks who disagree with the conclusions of the paper. Robert Sternberg, for example, doubts that the review is thorough. (Mayhaps the authors only referred to the detailed review by Cronbach and Snow, completed in the 1970s; perhaps Mr. Sternberg could list the evidence showing clear and compelling effects for matching instruction to putative styles.)
Although I’ve not had a chance to review the APS paper to which he refers, I look forward to doing so. It surely rings true with what I’ve been reading since the 1970s. To validate the learning styles approach, one needs to establish what are called ‘disordinal interactions’; other outcomes argue for employing one method regardless of ‘style.’
There are three possible types of outcomes, as shown in the accompanying figure. Disordinal interactions (full aptitude-by-treatment interactions) are illustrated in the first panel of the accompanying figure. Disordinal interactions quite rare. If there are what appear to be ‘ordinal interactions,’ those (illustrated by the second panel) likely show not the effects of style, but that one teaching method is more appropriate for everyone, regardless of style. Surely, if one method is equally better for learners regardless of style (see third panel), then it’s also preferable. This was a central point in a paper I wrote in the 1984 (from which this figure came); I hope to get a chance to revisit the topic in this venue soon. (Please understand that the data shown in the figure are hypothetical; they are not true data.)
Mr. Glenn’s article is “ Matching Teaching Style to Learning Style May Not Help Students“; access may require a personal or institutional subscription.
Cronbach, L. & Snow, R. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. New York: Irvington.
Lloyd, J. W. (1984). How shall we individualize instruction&mdashor should we? Remedial and Special Education, 5(1), 7-15.
[Original post 11:30 AM; revised to add figure and explanation 2:00 PM.]
Sphere: Related Content
Christmas arrived a week early!! Just this morning I was thinking about where on earth I could find a good, up-to-date article to address grad student comments that go something like this: “…every child learns differently”. I can’t really respond to these students in real-time because they’re in a distance-learning special education program. How many times have I gone to SSTs and IEPs and heard teachers, counselors, principals, or even psychs say this? Many. I’m more apt to hear this cliche when a student’s academic progress goes downhill and the frustrated teacher has done all he or she can to “differentiate” the instruction (e.g., change the student’s brand of pencil), but with no measureable impact. I don’t blame teachers who become frustrated when Johnny’s failure doesn’t go away quickly and quietly, but this is usually when the “every child learns differently” card gets pulled and a referral for a SPED eval is made (Ironically, only to have Johnny “fully included” back in the same instructional setting. Sorry, “crossing your fingers” is not considered an effective accomodation.).
Thanks, John, for sharing that article. It couldn’t have come at a better time. Maybe since it was printed in the Chronicle we’ll see less pedagogical folklore like learning styles being perpetuated in teacher-training programs. Of course, if most professors are kinesthetic learners, we may have problems. Now comes the question (you knew it was coming): Why on earth does this notion persist in education? Does it exist/persist in any other profession? (some viral strain of it, anyway).
I don’t have a subscription to the Chronicle; is it expensive?
Cheers!
This issue has been something of a pet peeve of mine for a long time, so I’m glad to see it getting some attention. That said, I think it will be years — many years — before it loosens its grip on education.
I’ve started a Facebook page to follow the fallout from this study — and hopefully give it a boost:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Learning-Styles-Debunked/367898565544?ref=nf#/pages/Learning-Styles-Debunked/367898565544?ref=mf
Foo and Robert, thanks for the comments. The topic of learning styles is, as you noted, widely spread and, well, peeving.
It might be fun to assemble a list of places that document their understanding of the scientific basis of the idea. Perhaps, Robert, your FB page will solicit some sources. Of course, Dan Willingham’s video would be an entry on that list. Dan has a list of readings on his personal site that are relevant, too. (Note however, that there appears to be a problem with that page at the time of this writing; I’m sure he’ll get it fixed.)
Meanwhile, although I find the learning styles argument to be essentially useless, I do not yet want to discount the potential value of examining aptitude-treatment interactions. I suspect that there are some potentially valuable lessons to be learned studying them.
Where do you folks stand on “differentiated studying” at the postsecondary level? There is much time and effort given to having students evaluate their learning styles and then showing them study strategies that emphasize this (so Auditory Amy will read things to herself and Visual Vinny will draw pictures or invent images). Do y’all think success is simply because of the ownership factor?
Sue, thanks for the comment and question. I have not seen any studies of ‘differentiated studying.’ Are there reports of success when using such an approach? They may exist, and I’ve simply overlooked them, but absent evidence showing that ‘differentiated studying’ benefits learners’ performance or outcomes, I’m not buying it.
Hmmm… I’ll look around, but most research isn’t that focused on a single factor – people put together ‘first year experience’ programs, and that sort of thing.
However, can you provide evidence showing that undifferentiated studying benefits learners’ performance or outcomes?
What might be more useful would be indications that yes, honestly, it’s best to teach art visually (even if Yours Truly has to recite the Rules of Composition to apply them)… and algebra… ???