10 Statements Disproving the Use of Learning Styles in Education

I've previously written about What Works In Education, what doesn't work is using Learning Styles, whether its Visual-Auditory-Kinesthetic Learning, Multiple Intelligences, VARK, or some other form. Yet well-meaning educators continue to use such approaches despite the overwhelming evidence against their effectiveness (and even possible harm).

Below are 10 statements disproving the value of incorporating learning styles in instruction.

1. Learning style inventories make use of forced-response choices causing people to make the same choices. “Nearly everybody would prefer a demonstration in science class to an uninterrupted lecture. This doesn’t mean that such individuals have a visual style, but that good science teaching involves demonstrations.” (Stahl)
2. Some of the best known and widely used instruments have such serious weaknesses (e.g. low reliability, poor validity, and negligible impact on pedagogy) that we recommend that their use in research and practice be discontinued. (Coffield)
3. Recognition of individuals’ strengths and weaknesses is good practice; using this information, however, to categorize children and prescribe methods can be detrimental to low-performing students. Although the idea of reading style is superficially appealing, critical examination should cause educators to be skeptical of this current educational fad. (Snider)
4. It is nonsense to hold the idea that some of your students can be classified as visual learners, whereas others, within the same class are auditory learners. There is simply no known validity to making any such classifications on the basis of either neurology or genuine behavioural performance. (Hattie)
5. There is not adequate evidence base to justify incorporating learning styles assessments into general education practice. Thus, limited education resources would better be devoted to adopting other educational practices that have strong evidence base, of which there are an increasing number. (Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, & Bjork)
6. "VAK  (Visual-Auditory-Kinesthetic) is “’nonsense’ from a neuroscientific point of view. ‘Humans have evolved to build a picture of the world through our senses working in unison, exploiting the immense interconnectivity that exists in the brain….The rationale from employing VAK learning styles appears to be weak. After more than 30 years of educational research into learning styles there is no independent evidence that VAK, or indeed any other learning style inventory, has any direct educational benefits.” ~Susan Greenfield,  director of the Royal Institute and a professor of pharmacology at Oxford University (Henry)
7. The scientific research on learning styles is “so weak and unconvincing,” concluded a group of distinguished psychologists in a 2008 review, that it is not possible “to justify incorporating learning-styles assessments into general educational practice.” A 2010 article was even more blunt: “There is no credible evidence that learning styles exist,” wrote University of Virginia cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham and co-author Cedar Riener. While students do have preferences about how they learn, the evidence shows they absorb information just as well whether or not they encounter it in their preferred mode. (Murphy Paul)
8. Because the vast majority of educational content is stored in terms of meaning and does not rely on visual, auditory, or kinesthetic memory, it is not surprising that researchers have found very little support for the idea that offering instruction in a child's best modality will have a positive effect on his learning. (Willingham)
9. There are undoubtedly individual differences inperceptual acuities which are modality based, and include visual, auditory and kinaesthetic sensations (although smell and taste are more notable), but this does not mean that learning is restricted to, or even necessarily associated with, one’s superior sense.(Geake)
10. The vast majority of educators will tell you that learning styles are a proven fact. But they’re not. They are an unproven theory that may be useful. Stop assuming that just because other teachers say something is so, that they’re right. Stop assuming that because most everyone treats learning styles as an accepted “fact” that they are right. (Jensen)

 Works Cited

 

Coffield, F., Mosely, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Should we be using learning styles? What research has to say about practice. London. Learning and Skills Research Centre. Web. 19 Jan. 2014. http://itslifejimbutnotasweknowit.org.uk/files/LSRC_LearningStyles.pdf

Geake, John. "Neuromythologies in Education." Educational Research 50.2 (2008): 123-33. Web. 19 Jan. 2014.

http://amyalexander.wiki.westga.edu/file/view/neuromythologies-p.pdf

Hattie, John, and Gregory C. R. Yates. Visible Learning and the Science of How We Learn. London: Routledge, 2014. Print.

Henry, Julie. "Professor Pans 'learning Style' Teaching Method." The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 29 July 2007. Web. 19 Jan. 2014.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1558822/Professor-pans-learning-style-teaching-method.html

Jensen, Eric. "Are Learning Styles a Big Hoax? What Does the Latest Science Say About Different Learners?" Brain Based Learning Brain Based Teaching Articles From Jensen Learning Are Learning Styles a Big Hoax What Does the Latest Science Say About Different Learners Comments. N.p., 4 May 2010. Web. 19 Jan. 2014.

http://www.jensenlearning.com/news/are-learning-styles-a-big-hoax-what-does-the-latest-science-say-about-different-learners/brain-based-learning

Murphy Paul, Annie. "The Brilliant Blog." Annie Murphy Paul. N.p., 15 Oct. 2013. Web. 19 Jan. 2014.

http://anniemurphypaul.com/2013/10/forget-about-learning-styles-heres-something-better/#

Pashler, Harold, Mark McDaniel, Doug Rohrer, and Robert Bjork. "Learning Styles Concepts and Evidence." Psychological Science in the Public Interest 09.03 (2008): n. pag. Web. 19 Jan. 2014.

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pspi/PSPI_9_3.pdf

Snider, Vicki. “What We Know About Learning Styles For Research in Special Education.” Educational Leadership. 48(2), 53.

http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_199010_snider.pdf

Stahl, Steven A. "Different Strokes for Different Folks." American Educator Fall (2009). Web. 19 Jan. 2014.

https://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/fall1999/DiffStrokes.pdf

Willingham, Daniel. "Ask the Cognitive Scientist." AFT. American Federation of Teachers, Summer 2005. Web. 19 Jan. 2014.

http://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/ae/summer2005/willingham.cfm

What Works In Education: How Educators Can Make A Difference

Through a meta-analysis of over 900 studies, John Hattie’s Visible Learning evaluated the impact of many factors on student achievement. Using “effect size”, Hattie ranks factors from family structure, teaching practices, socio-economics, school policies, and more on student learning.

An effect greater than .40 is seen as above the norm and leading towards greater-than-expected growth. An effect size of .40 is the expected progress a student should make within a year. An effect size of .6 means that the relationship between one factor and student achievement was 60% of one standard deviation.

Effect size = Average (post test)- Average (pre-test)

                              Spread (standard deviation)    

While schools only have our students for 7 hours a day, Hattie’s meta-analysis proves teachers have an amazing ability to influence learning—and even overcome factors beyond teacher control.

Influence	ES
Student expectations	1.44
Formative assessments	.90
Feedback	0.75
Teacher clarity	0.75
Teacher-student relationships	0.72
Creativity programs	0.65
Professional development	0.62
Not labeling students	.61
Concept mapping	0.6
Mastery Learning	0.58
Student-centered teaching	.54
Full vs pre-term birth weight	.53
Socioeconomic status	0.52
Availability of resources at home	0.5
Parent involvement and achievement	0.49
Overall teacher effects	0.32
Ethnicity	0.32
Homework	0.29
Family Structure	0.18
Ability grouping	0.12
Male-Female Differences	0.12

Red: influences beyond teacher/school control

We cannot continue to make excuses. There is no place in our schools for teachers who speak fatally: “His family life is horrible; he’s not going to be successful” or “My students aren’t motivated” or “He’s dyslexic”. Such cynicism has no place in our schools.  We need teachers who are up to the challenge and believe in their students and their own abilities.

While factors beyond our control influence student achievement, expert teachers focus on the 45 factors that have a greater influence than socio-economic status.  Of these, teachers and schools control and influence all but 2 (birth weight and home environment).    

Good teachers believe in their abilities. They maximize their impact by using research-proven methods. They know they can will make a difference. They don’t label their students (.61 effect size).  Good teachers don’t use a student’s disability, background, ethnicity, family, etc. as an excuse. Instead they embrace a growth mindset, a belief that good teachers make a tremendous difference.

We make a difference.

Sadly, Hattie’s research also illuminated how many teachers, schools, and policy makers continue to support policies, programs and interventions that don’t work, or actually negatively impact student learning.

Only influences above .4 are considered above the norm, leading to more-than-expected growth.

Some examples of educational movements that have low—and in the case of retention, negative—impacts:

Charter schools: .20

Gender-based instruction: .12

Whole language learning: .06

Open classrooms: .01

Multiple intelligences/Learning styles: .17

Retention: -13

If we are to move education forward, we must fully embrace research. We must confront what really matters. We can no longer make decisions based on our beliefs, anecdotal “evidence” or “that’s the way it’s always been.” The past two decades have seen an explosion of educational research, which we must embrace. No excuse exists for educational leaders continuing to make ill-fated decisions based on instinct or personal convictions.

Let’s ask ourselves: What can we do better? How can we progress? How can we make learning visible to the teachers?

________

Hattie, John. Visible Learning for Teachers: Maximizing Impact on Learning. London: Routledge, 2012. Print.