Learning styles debunked

Dec 16, 2009

Are you a verbal learner or a visual learner? Chances are, you've pegged yourself or your children as either one or the other and rely on study techniques that suit your individual learning needs. And you're not alone— for more than 30 years, the notion that teaching methods should match a student's particular learning style has exerted a powerful influence on education. The long-standing popularity of the learning styles movement has in turn created a thriving commercial market amongst researchers, educators, and the general public.

The wide appeal of the idea that some students will learn better when material is presented visually and that others will learn better when the material is presented verbally, or even in some other way, is evident in the vast number of learning-style tests and teaching guides available for purchase and used in schools. But does scientific research really support the existence of different learning styles, or the hypothesis that people learn better when taught in a way that matches their own unique style?

Unfortunately, the answer is no, according to a major new report published this month in Psychological Science in the Public Interest, a journal of the Association for . The report, authored by a team of eminent researchers in the psychology of learning—Hal Pashler (University of San Diego), Mark McDaniel (Washington University in St. Louis), Doug Rohrer (University of South Florida), and Robert Bjork (University of California, Los Angeles)—reviews the existing literature on learning styles and finds that although numerous studies have purported to show the existence of different kinds of learners (such as "auditory learners" and "visual learners"), those studies have not used the type of randomized research designs that would make their findings credible.

Nearly all of the studies that purport to provide evidence for learning styles fail to satisfy key criteria for scientific validity. Any experiment designed to test the learning-styles hypothesis would need to classify learners into categories and then randomly assign the learners to use one of several different learning methods, and the participants would need to take the same test at the end of the experiment. If there is truth to the idea that learning styles and teaching styles should mesh, then learners with a given style, say visual-spatial, should learn better with instruction that meshes with that style. The authors found that of the very large number of studies claiming to support the learning-styles hypothesis, very few used this type of research design. Of those that did, some provided evidence flatly contradictory to this meshing hypothesis, and the few findings in line with the meshing idea did not assess popular learning-style schemes.

No less than 71 different models of learning styles have been proposed over the years. Most have no doubt been created with students' best interests in mind, and to create more suitable environments for learning. But psychological research has not found that people learn differently, at least not in the ways learning-styles proponents claim. Given the lack of scientific evidence, the authors argue that the currently widespread use of learning-style tests and teaching tools is a wasteful use of limited educational resources.

Explore further: Researchers use computer-based treatment for children with anxiety

More information: To read further on teaching and learning practices science does support, see the following articles:

"Increasing Retention Without Increasing Study Time" by Doug Rohrer and Hal Pashler in Current Directions in Psychological Science. www3.interscience.wiley.com/jo… l/118000121/abstract

"The Read-Recite-Review Study Strategy: Effective and Portable" by Mark A. McDaniel, Daniel C. Howard, and Gilles O. Einstein in Psychological Science. www3.interscience.wiley.com/jo… l/122269051/abstract

"Test-Enhanced Learning: Taking Memory Tests Improves Long-Term Retention" Henry L. Roediger, III, and Jeffrey D. Karpicke in Psychological Science. www3.interscience.wiley.com/jo… l/118597351/abstract

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

What's the brain got to do with education?

Oct 29, 2007

Quite a lot -- according to teachers in a recent survey commissioned by The Innovation Unit and carried out by researchers at the University of Bristol. Although current teacher training programmes generally omit the science ...

Giving learning a personal touch

Jul 18, 2008

A learning system that adapts to the abilities and needs of students opens the way to a more personalised approach in delivering education electronically.

Recommended for you

New book examines the known and unknown about OCD

15 hours ago

A new and thorough overview of a disturbing behavioural condition that will affect 2.3 per cent of the UK population in their lifetime has been written by University of Sussex researchers.

Ibuprofen relieves women's hurt feelings, not men's

17 hours ago

(Medical Xpress)—For years, researchers have known that physical pain relievers such as ibuprofen can also help ease emotional pain, but new research suggests that ibuprofen has contrasting effects on men ...

User comments : 4

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Rynox77
Dec 16, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Jayofalltrades
not rated yet Dec 17, 2009
I don't see the learning styles as being "debunked", so much as they still require confirmation. Perhaps the eminent researchers could prove the learning styles don't exist?
ArtflDgr
not rated yet Dec 17, 2009
social engineering is not engineering, its experimentation on children and adults on mass scales by manipulating the circumstances of their lives (ie playing god)
patnclaire
1 / 5 (1) Dec 17, 2009
I agree with Jayofalltrades that the article did not show that leaning styles were "debunked." The sim;oified hypothesis testing says that: 1) state a null hypothesis (Ho) which says there is no difference or effect; 2) state an alternate hyp (Ha) that there is a difference or effect; 3) design your experiment; 4) collect observations and data; 5) test the results; 6) make conslusion. I did not see this in their methods.
malimbar04
5 / 5 (1) Dec 22, 2009
Patnclaire, numbering your statements makes them harder to read and yet no more correct. All that is required for an official scientific paper to exist is to reliably disprove some theory. All the other stuff is just add-on fluff to make it seem like a process, when the greatest discoveries didn't follow this pattern at all. DNA, the speed of light, Relativity, Newtonian physics - none of this followed this process.

Jayofalltrades, This article merely describes someone else s research. Assuming the article is accurate though, then it is debunking the theory of learner types. That theory would predict the results described in this article assuming the experiments were done correctly. But these results didn't materialize (all research that did show these results had flaws, and flawed research is completely useless research). The correctly-done research shows that the accepted learning styles don't exist. That's a debunk.