Commentary: Learning-style theories debunked, but still guiding educational practice

Abstract

My children taught me that computers run on smoke and when the smoke comes out of the processor chips they will not work anymore. Although the fallacy is obvious, the logic is seductive. The long running credence in learning-style theories in education now looks as ephemeral as the phlogiston theory of the middle ages [1] or my children's assertion about computer function. My initial alert to the demise of learning theories came from Gary Stix writing in Scientific American [2], where he proclaimed that the notion that each child has a particular learning style is a myth. “The notion that a pupil tends to learn better by favoring a particular form of sensory input—a visual learner as opposed to one who listens better—has not received much validation in actual studies. For this and other myths, public perceptions appear to have outstripped the science. Uta Frith, a neuroscientist who chaired a British panel that looked at the promise of neuroeducation, urges parents and educators to tread cautiously. There is huge demand by the general public to have information about neuroscience for education. As a consequence, there an enormous supply of totally untested, untried, and not very scientific methods” [2]. A part of the history of creating learning-style theories is by extrapolation from the personality theory of the analytical psychologist and psychoanalyst Carl Jung. Jung's ideas were incorporated into the Myers–Briggs psychological test dating from the 1940s; a test that is still widely used. The Myers–Briggs test categorizes people into groups such as introvert and extrovert. However this test, just like learning styles, is backed by little supportive evidence from objective studies [3]. Even so the idea of classifying people into types has great appeal. Proponents of learning-style assessment contend that optimal instruction requires tailoring instruction after an assessment of learning style; typically evaluating the sort of information presentation they prefer (words, pictures, or speech. The learning-styles view has had a great influence at all levels ranging from kindergarten to graduate school. Pashler et al. [3] conclude that students can learn equally well using a variety of learning styles and students do not learn better when their preferred learning styles are used. The most common hypothesis about learning styles is the meshing hypothesis [3], which exhorts teachers to mesh learning with the preferences of the learner (i.e., provide a visual learner with visual presentations). It is no surprise that many commercial enterprises continue to publish learning-styles tests and guidebooks for teachers, and provide professional development workshops. Pashler et al. [3] set out to find evidence for learning styles that met scientific criteria. Students must be divided into groups on the basis of their measured learning styles and then students must be randomly assigned to receive one instructional mode. It is to be expected if learning styles are valid that learning will show an optimum when learning style matches learning mode. It was easy enough to find that the literature provided ample evidence that children and adults will express preferences about how they prefer information to be presented to them. However, although the literature on learning styles is enormous, very few studies used a randomized experimental methodology. Those that did commonly found results that flatly contradicted the popular meshing hypothesis. There is no evidence to justify incorporating learning-styles assessments into general educational practice. “Thus, limited education resources would better be devoted to adopting other educational practices that have a strong evidence base, of which there are an increasing number” [3]. Nature famously abhors a vacuum so what has entered the place of learning styles? Some people of course have simply not given them up and this echoes the words of Max Planck “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up” [4]. The next generation will adhere to practices based on the evidence of MRI brain scans and objectively proven practices, perhaps using music in a synergistic manner [2]. However, for the time being it seems that no theory of learning has a clear right to dictate practice. The blended learning we are providing may be as good as it gets.