Linking Thinking

Learning styles: Reports of demise exaggerated

The idea that dif­fer­ent kinds of learn­ers (such as “audi­tory learn­ers” and “visual learn­ers”) learn best when they are taught in their pre­ferred learn­ing style modal­ity has had a tena­cious grip in class­room set­tings in recent decades. Here is yet another report, this one com­mis­sioned by Psy­cho­log­i­cal Sci­ence in the Pub­lic Inter­est, that con­demns the use of learn­ing styles in school set­tings. Frankly, it’s inter­est­ing if you are a teacher, trainer, par­ent or employed in the vast indus­try of learn­ing style assess­ments, but it is less inter­est­ing if you are a learner or inter­ested in per­son­al­ized learn­ing in non-structured set­tings. School is such a nar­row slice of the learn­ing land­scape, and it dis­tress­ing to hear of all the resources spent on pro­mot­ing a sus­pect propo­si­tion, then again to quell it. These find­ings are not rel­e­vant to unstruc­tured learn­ing envi­ron­ments, and the strict type of ran­dom­ized research designs advo­cated (e.g., clas­sify learn­ers into cat­e­gories, then ran­domly assign the learn­ers to use one of sev­eral dif­fer­ent learn­ing meth­ods and assess effec­tive­ness of the learn­ing meth­ods with a test given to all par­tic­i­pants) is a steep hur­dle. Thanks to Will Thal­heimer for point­ing to the study.

♦ ♦ ♦

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Subscribe without commenting