The End of Learning Styles

Although I did not hear this particular report, NPR (National Public Radio) aired a report on the scientific research related to “learning styles”; see http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/08/29/139973743/think-youre-an-auditory-or-visual-learner-scientists-say-its-unlikely

If this is the end of ‘learning styles’, what does that mean? Which ‘learning styles’?

I think the end of learning styles can only be a good thing, for teachers and our students. The basic constructs of ‘learning styles’ involve vague descriptions of sensory processing, skewed to favor one or more categories of input (auditory, visual, kinetic, etc), without regard to the research of cognitive scientists. Categorizing students within these skewed categories creates dangers, and real damage, to our students. We all have had students who have been told “I am a very hands-on learner; if I can not touch it and move it, I will never understand it” … and similar statements of limitations for other ‘styles’.

Ed Laughbaum, a long time friend, said in a recent post that ‘basic brain function is the same in all normal brains’; he does not say this lightly, and has good scientific reasons for that statement. My own humble reading of current research and theories of cognition certainly supports that statement. Unless the student has a temporary (drug induced, for example) or chronic (birth defect, closed brain injury) biological issue, the learning needs are quite similar across all students with comparable current learning.

The constructs of learning styles have not worked, and they conflict with science. Too often, we have accepted “proof by parable” or even “proof by rhyming” … what does “drill & kill” mean? An “inch wide and a mile deep”? “She is a visual learner.” “Our students need manipulatives.” “Sage on stage … Guide on side.” I am afraid that our profession, and teaching in general, has been guided more by the appeal of the words in statements rather than by known properties of learning.

It is true that very few of us, and teachers, will be able to study the actual work of cognitive scientists. We will depend upon others to translate and summarize this work so that we can use it. If these resources are not available, we must avoid the pop-psychology notions that might seem to have some truth in them.

If you would like a source, here is the best one-stop summary I have seen: http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/papers/misapplied.html , an article called “Applications and Misapplications of Cognitive Psychology to Mathematics Education”.

Developmental Mathematics Revival!

Bringing a new vitality to college mathematics 2011 to 2019