LEARNING STYLES:MYTH BUSTERSJessica Cockroft, Aphton Kostopanagiotis, Allie Perrotta

GOAL= OFFERING A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE

ON LEARNING STYLES

WHAT’S AHEAD…

• Learning styles: fact or fiction?

• Learning styles counter-arguments

• Evidence against learning styles

• Issues with learning styles assessments

• Implications for teachers

• Workshop activity

COUNTER-ARGUMENTS OVERVIEW

1. Evidence AGAINST Learning Styles • Auditory/Visual Experiment• Computer Programming Experiment

2. Issues With Learning Style Assessments• People DON’T Fit One Particular Style• Abundance of Styles• Self-Reporting is DANGEROUS!

EVIDENCE AGAINST LEARNING STYLES

1) A reliable auditory & visual experiment shows that people DON’T memorize words based on learning style

• Video: Daniel Willingham, Cognitive Psychologist

Conclusion: People don’t learn words visually or auditorily, they learn them by

attaching MEANING!

EVIDENCE AGAINST LEARNING STYLES CONT’D

IMPULSIVE REFLECTIVE

Generation Method: Writing a Programming Code

2) Computer Programing Experiment

Completion Method: Completing an Existing Programming Code

VS.

FINDINGS: Completion Method was SUPERIOR to BOTH types of learners

CONCLUSION: Learning styles and instructional methods have NO practical, educational implications

2. ISSUES WITH LEARNING STYLE ASSESSMENTS

PEOPLE DON’T FIT ONE PARTICULAR STYLE

• Pigeonholing: Classifying people into distinct groups (ex. Visual, Auditory, etc.)

• Learning Style Inventories use arbitrary criterion (mean, median, etc.) • Ex) Matching Familiar Figures Test

• CONCLUSION: Differences in cognition is gradual, NOT nominal

ABUNDANCE OF LEARNING STYLES

• There are over 70 learning styles!

(Coffield, Moseley, Hall, & Ecclestone, 2004)

• The number of learning styles is skeptical and impractical

• Cumbersome for teachers to link learners with particular learning styles

?

SELF-REPORTING IS DANGEROUS!

• People are often not able to report on the styles they use to learn• Reliability is low (.60/.70) for diagnostic measures such

as Myers-Briggs Type Inventory & Carbo’s Reading Style Inventory

• What people prefer is NOT ALWAYS what is best for them!

IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHERS

IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHERS

• Be cognizant that much more affects student learning

• Students should still not all be treated the same way

• Learning styles is not a “theory of instruction”

IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHERS

• You don’t have to believe in learning styles to appreciate differences among students

• Museum example

• Labeling students tends to limit options

IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHERS

• Think of it this way:

   The lesson clicks or does not click because of the knowledge that the child brings to the lesson (BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE), interests, etc.

IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHERS

• “Universal learning style of the human mind”

• Match instruction to the content you are teaching

• Remember: All humans are born with an astounding capacity to learn!

LET’S PRACTICE !!!• REMEMBER: experiencing material in multiple ways

and attaching meaning promotes deeper understanding of material!!

• Break up into your grade level and subject PLTs• 3rd grade language arts• 6th grade science• 9th grade world history• 5th grade mathematics

• Each worksheet will have a common core or essential standard. Using your assigned standard, create a lesson plan that demonstrates multi-modality and demonstrate how you will attach meaning to concepts that will deepen understanding.

REFERENCES

Forget about learning styles. Here is something better. Retrieved April 5, 2014, from http://anniemurphypaul.com/2013/10/forget-about-learning-styles-heres-something-better/#

Kirschner, P. A. & Merienboer, J.J.G. (2013). Do learners know best? Urban legends in education. American Psychological Association, 48(3), 169–183

Matching teaching style to learning style may not help students. Retrieved April 1, 2014, from http://chronicle.com/article/Matching-Teaching-Style-to/49497/

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Association of Psychological Science, 9(3), 105-119.