Assignment: Theory and Research in Education

Assignment: Theory and Research in Education

ORDER NOW FOR AN ORIGINAL PAPER ASSIGNMENT:  Assignment: Theory and Research in Education   

Assignment: Theory and Research in Education

Theory and Research in Education 2015, Vol. 13(3) 308 –333

© The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1477878515606621

tre.sagepub.com

TRE

Is learning styles-based instruction effective? A comprehensive analysis of recent research on learning styles

Joshua Cuevas University of North Georgia, USA

Abstract In an influential publication in 2009, a group of cognitive psychologists revealed that there was a lack of empirical evidence supporting the concept of learning styles-based instruction and provided guidelines for the type of research design necessary to verify the learning styles hypothesis. This article examined the literature since 2009 to ascertain whether the void has been filled by rigorous studies designed to test the matching hypothesis and identify interaction effects. Correlational and experimental research recently published on learning styles is reviewed, along with an examination of how the subject is portrayed in teacher education texts. Results revealed that the more methodologically sound studies have tended to refute the hypothesis and that a substantial divide continues to exist, with learning styles instruction enjoying broad acceptance in practice, but the majority of research evidence suggesting that it has no benefit to student learning, deepening questions about its validity.

Keywords Achievement, cognition, interaction effect, learning styles, matching hypothesis, research-based instruction

Background

Over the last two decades, learning styles instruction has become ubiquitous in public education. It has gained influence and has enjoyed wide acceptance among educators at all levels, parents, and the general public (Pashler et al., 2009). It is prevalent in teacher

Corresponding author: Joshua Cuevas, 210 A Dunlap Hall, University of North Georgia, Dahlonega, GA 30597, USA. Email: jocue24@yahoo.com

606621 TRE0010.1177/1477878515606621Theory and Research in EducationCuevas research-article2015

Article

mailto:jocue24@yahoo.com
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F1477878515606621&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2015-10-06
Cuevas 309

education programs, adult education programs (Bishka, 2010), promoted in k-12 schools in many countries (Scott, 2010), and frequently a main attraction at academic confer- ences. School districts and universities spend millions of dollars each year on assess- ments, training programs, textbooks, materials, and speakers who advocate for learning styles instruction.

The phrase learning styles refers to the concept that different people prefer to process information in different ways and therefore learn more effectively when they receive instruction in a way that conforms to their preferences (Pashler et al., 2009). The inven- tories created to measure learning style preferences generally classify learners into dif- ferent style categories. Since at least the 1960s researchers have hypothesized about aptitude–treatment interactions (ATIs), the idea that a student’s aptitude, in some cases characterized by a student’s preference such as learning style, can interact with a corre- sponding treatment (instructional approach) to produce an enhanced effect, most com- monly purported to be increased learning (Scott, 2010). By the 1970s, the bulk of the empirical research had refuted the most common hypotheses associated with ATIs, yet the idea remerged a decade later to find unprecedented acceptance and widespread use in the form of learning styles-based instruction. These practices are so widely accepted that they go largely unquestioned (Bishka, 2010). The vast amount of educational time, resources, and funds spent on learning styles would suggest that it is warranted to closely examine the claims behind the practice and the research that supports it.

Pashler et al. (2009) trace the history of learning styles to the Myers–Briggs assess- ment that became popular in the 1940s and continues to find extensive use today. The Myers–Briggs is commonly used by businesses to make occupational decisions about the suitability of potential employees. The idea that people cluster into categories as conceived by the Myers–Briggs is not strongly supported by research, yet that has not limited its popularity. In essence, there seems to be an appeal for industries and the general public to find out what ‘type of person’ someone is by slotting them into prede- termined categories, and this concept has found its way into a wide variety of educa- tional settings.

Other researchers trace the learning styles phenomenon to the much more recent development of Gardner’s concept of multiple intelligences. Gardner initially proposed that there are eight forms of intelligence that all people possess: visual-spatial, verbal- linguistic, logical-mathematical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, musi- cal, and naturalistic. Allcock and Hulme (2010) argue that Gardner’s multiple intelligence theory (Gardner, 1991, 1993) has influenced the learning styles approach by advocating matching instruction to students’ preferred learning style. They point out that many teachers are expected to consider all intelligences when lesson planning in order to appeal to students’ learning styles. Fridley and Fridley (2010) also link the expansion of learning styles to Gardner’s hypothesis and emphasize inherent weaknesses in Gardner’s model. While Gardner’s propositions have encountered substantial criticism in the field of psychology due to a lack of empirical support, this analysis will focus only on learning styles, as it has become an extensive field in its own right.

Kolb’s (1984, 1985) inventories are the most commonly used learning styles models in recently published research. The Kolb inventory classifies learners along two dimen- sions: a preferred mode of perception (concrete or abstract) and a preferred mode of
310 Theory and Research in Education 13(3)

processing (active experimentation or reflective observation) (Gogus and Gunes, 2011; Pashler et al., 2009; Zacharis, 2011). Based on these categories, it classifies learners into one of the four categories: divergers who favor feeling and watching (concrete, reflec- tive), assimilators who favor thinking and watching (abstract, reflective), convergers who favor thinking and doing (abstract, active), and accommodators who favor feeling and doing (concrete, active). As with other learning styles frameworks, there have been concerns about the validity of the constructs measured in the Kolb inventories as well (Kappe et al., 2009; Martin, 2010).

But while Kolb’s inventories are commonly used in research, the visual/auditory/ kinesthetic (VAK) or visual/auditory/read–write/kinesthetic (VARK) is the most com- mon learning styles taxonomy in practice (Bishka, 2010; Fridley and Fridley, 2010; Riener and Willingham, 2010) and has become commonplace at all levels of education and through a wide range of commercial products. VAK/VARK instruments can be found in a wide variety of different forms and can be traced to numerous theorists, but are most commonly associated with Fleming (2001). Scott (2010) suggests that the VAK/VARK model may have taken hold to the extent that it did in educational settings because the categories relate to specific senses and are concrete in comparison to other learning styles models which can appear abstract to the point of ambiguity. But this grounding in our natural senses should also make this model more straightforward to study. For instance, since the premise of the learning styles hypothesis is that matching learning style to instructional mode produces increased learning, for the VAK/VARK models, this would mean matching instruction to students’ sensory functions – a visual learner would be provided visually oriented instruction, an auditory learner would be provided with verbal instruction, and so on. This would seem to be more readily measurable than the more fluid constructs of the Kolb inventory.

Some researchers, however, have questioned the validity and reliability of various learning styles inventories. Fridley and Fridley (2010) argue that VAK instruments have little or no predictive value. They note that according to the learning styles hypothesis, if instruction is matched to students’ learning preferences, then we should see an increase in learning, yet research does not yet support this claim. Scott (2010) points out that fac- tor analyses have shown Kolb’s learning styles inventories to be unreliable, bringing into question the validity of the constructs they purport to measure. Another popular model, Honey and Mumford’s (1986) Learning Style Questionnaire (LSQ) was developed pre- cisely because of concerns about the validity of the Kolb assessments (Kappe et al., 2009). The LSQ identified four types of learners: activists, theorists, pragmatists, and reflectors. But factor analyses have shown the LSQ to have reliability issues as well (Scott, 2010).

Assignment: Theory and Research in Education

Assignment: Theory and Research in Education

However, despite concerns about the validity and the reliability of the measures, the commercial component of the field is so vast that there is little incentive for critical reflection based on objective empirical findings (Bishka, 2010). These commercial enti- ties have been a powerful force behind the propagation of learning styles instruction, a curious dynamic at odds with the reality that educational psychologists, those who are best equipped to study the concept, generally regard it with great skepticism (Scott, 2010). tric evidence and remain unconvinced

You must proofread your paper. But do not strictly rely on your computer’s spell-checker and grammar-checker; failure to do so indicates a lack of effort on your part and you can expect your grade to suffer accordingly. Papers with numerous misspelled words and grammatical mistakes will be penalized. Read over your paper – in silence and then aloud – before handing it in and make corrections as necessary. Often it is advantageous to have a friend proofread your paper for obvious errors. Handwritten corrections are preferable to uncorrected mistakes.

Use a standard 10 to 12 point (10 to 12 characters per inch) typeface. Smaller or compressed type and papers with small margins or single-spacing are hard to read. It is better to let your essay run over the recommended number of pages than to try to compress it into fewer pages.

Likewise, large type, large margins, large indentations, triple-spacing, increased leading (space between lines), increased kerning (space between letters), and any other such attempts at “padding” to increase the length of a paper are unacceptable, wasteful of trees, and will not fool your professor.

The paper must be neatly formatted, double-spaced with a one-inch margin on the top, bottom, and sides of each page. When submitting hard copy, be sure to use white paper and print out using dark ink. If it is hard to read your essay, it will also be hard to follow your argument.