Are Learning Styles Real?
Myths in Education
Outside of research, few people even mention the science of teaching and learning. When research is mentioned, it’s often flatly wrong. Psychologists Paul Kirschner and Jeroen van Merriënboer reviewed three “urban legends” in education that have no solid basis in the research literature.
The first myth reviewed has two related parts. The myth claims that modern children are “digital natives” who can learn easily from technological sources (e.g. computers). Children now have become independent and creative learners who can communicate, learn, and solve problems easily with technology. Relatedly, children are thought to be able to multitask with technology efficiently (e.g. doing homework like using social media). With regard to the digital natives claim, the authors review research that questions how tech-savvy young people are according to research. Students in many Western countries were found to have low or limited knowledge of information technology. Their skills were resticted to email, mobile phones, and basic software programs. Another study claims that students demonstrate the butterfly defect, where they click through hyperlinks without delving into the content deeply. Researchers in Finland surveyed the technological knowledge of young student teachers and also found their knowledge to be limited. Technology was used primarily for passive consumption, not active creation.
The second half of the first myth regards students as efficient multitaskers. Some authors have claimed that exposure to digital media have altered young people’s brains to multitask and reason more efficiently. Here, the authors note that the cognitive structure of human minds actually don’t allow for multitasking. When we see someone doing homework while surfing the web, the two activities are not occurring simultaneously. The “multitasker” is actually switching between the two activities quickly. So this seems useful right? Studies of multitasking consistently show that task switching in this way leads to inferior learning and performance because mentally juggling tasks overburdens our already-limited working memory. Even when doctors (highly expert in their field) switch between tasks in an emergency room, they commit more medical errors. You may already be familiar with the findings that drivers using cell phones perform about the same as drunk drivers. Pilots, nurses, pharmacists, and graduate students who were interrupted during their work all performed worse than control subjects. Even worse, frequent multitasking can actually cause multitaskers to become more distracted over time, reducing their ability to switch between tasks!
Another myth claims that individuals can be categorized into different “learning styles” (e.g. analytical vs. holistic or visual vs. auditory) and that learning will be improved if instructional materials are matched to learners’ styles. One problem with this theory is that differences in cognition are not as black-and-white as learning styles theorists claim. In the few studies that seem to demonstrate that matching learning styles to instruction is superior, Kirschner and van Merriënboer claim that intelligence may be a confound that invalidates the results. A yet more worrisome problem is that assessing learning styles is unreliable. In one study, learning styles were assessed at two different times for the same subjects. These subjects were often categorized into different learning styles after the second test. Finally, there are too many learning styles (2^71) to personalize instruction for each student. That’s more learning styles than there are living humans on Earth!
One large-scale review analyzed the relationship between learning preferences and achievement. Psychologist Richard Clark found a weak or negative correlation. These data suggest that what learners prefer is not usually what’s best for their learning. Reviews of learning styles research very often fail to find improved outcomes from matching instruction to learners’ styles. The authors of this review propose that more relevant differences between students ought to be considered. Prior knowledge of subject matter has been demonstrated as educationally relevant. Due to the expertise reversal effect, learners with more knowledge require different kinds of instruction compared to learners with low prior knowledge (e.g. high-knowledge learners require less guidance during learning).
Kirschner and van Merriënboer’s final myth is the idea of learners as self-regulated, self-directing learners. Because most information is “out there” on the Internet, it is often claimed that learners should be given free reign of time to use technology to teach themselves. British Indian educator Sugata Mitra has spoken about this at TED twice. Proponents of this practice claim so because knowledge is rapidly growing and becoming obsolete. But as the reviewers in this study argue, much information is not obsolete (e.g. history, languages, and the fundamentals of the sciences). What’s more, students are unable to search for and evaluate the accuracy of information independently. For his, they need guidance. Assessing validity, searching effectively, and choosing sources is difficult for children and adults according to several studies. Prior knowledge is necessary to search for and evaluate the burgeoning content on the Internet. Simply handing students technology and research time will not lead to successful learning.
Reviewing studies of computer-assisted learning, the authors demonstrate that learning is often hindered when students are given more control. Students are more likely to practice low-level skills they’ve already mastered due to fear of failure. Instead of giving learners no control (which can be demotivating) or a high degree of control, the authors point to research on shared control. Shared control recommends that the instructor select a set of quality learning tasks, goals, or resources from which the student chooses a few goals to achieve. In this way, the teacher is able to challenge the student with quality resources and the student is given the illusion of choice. Impressively, this kind of “second-order scaffolding” improved both students’ learning and motivation.
Considering the shaky myths promoted by the educational sciences, Kirschner and van Merriënboer recommend that educators and researchers base practice on sound theoretical and experimental grounds. Otherwise, their discipline will lose the respect it needs to promote innovation.
P.S. Kirschner and van Merriënboer ended their article by noting that people don’t change their minds when their views are rigorously contradicted due to human psychology. If you changed your mind, please describe that change in the comments below. Alternatively, if you’re still not convinced, can I clarify your questions?
References
Kirschner, Paul A., and Jeroen J. Van Merriënboer. “Do Learners Really Know Best? Urban Legends in Education.” Educational Psychologist 48.3 (2013): 169-83. Web.
