The cognitive scientist Professor Dan Willingham wrote, back in 2005, that there was no substantive empirical evidence supporting theories around 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. And teachers then tailor their instruction to suit the learning style of the student. This was the ultimate in personalised teaching and learning.(I came across the new term ‘individuation’ in a book the other day which seems to mean pretty much the same as personalisation)
So, Willinghams myth-busting assertion came as a bit of a shock to many teachers as it was then a given that children learn in different ways and teachers must adapt their teaching to suit each childs’ learning style. The theory of ‘Learning Styles ‘ posits that there are three main types of learners -visual, auditory, and kinaesthetic( ie via experience—moving, touching, and doing). It’s important, at this point, to distinguish between a learning style, and an ability. Ability refers to how well you can do something. Style is the way you do it. Learning-styles theories predict that catering to the preferred processing mode of a student will lead to improved learning. Many teacher training courses still include these theories as part of initial teacher education.
Research since 2005 seems to have broadly confirmed Willinghams proposition that learning-style theories applied in the classroom do not bring an advantage to students. However, as Willingham points out ‘ Researchers have long known that people claim to have learning preferences—they’ll say, “I’m a visual learner” or “I like to think in words.” There’s increasing evidence that people act on those beliefs; if given the chance, the visualizer will think in pictures rather than words. But doing so confers no cognitive advantage. People believe they have learning styles, and they try to think in their preferred style, but doing so doesn’t help them think.’
So, evidence supporting learning-styles theories is thin. Hal Pashler and his associates ,in 2008 ,for example ,reviewed the research literature and found the following : ‘ We conclude therefore, that at present, there is no adequate evidence base to justify incorporating learning-styles assessments into general educational practice.’ They added though ‘ 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.’
Willingham highlighted a methodological issue ‘ They also noted that many of the existing studies didn’t really test for evidence of learning styles in the ideal way. For example, if you want to test the verbalizer/visualizer distinction, it’s not enough to show that visualizers remember pictures better than verbalizers do. Maybe those people you categorize as visual learners simply have better memories overall. You need to examine both types of learners and both types of content, and show that words are better than pictures for the verbalizers, and that the opposite is true for the visualizers.’
Given that the evidence around learning styles is, at the very least contested, one wonders why trainee teachers are still being trained in the theory and what it means for classroom practice and interventions. So much, then , for evidence informed practice.
Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence
Psychological Science in the Public Interest
Harold Pashler, Mark McDaniel, Doug Rohrer, and Robert Bjork
Dec 2008
Montrose42 Blog 