I don't like this article. Here are my main concerns:
1) The review article cited at the start concludes its abstract with this:
"Although the literature on learning styles is enormous, very few studies have even used an experimental methodology capable of testing the validity of learning styles applied to education. Moreover, of those that did use an appropriate method, several found results that flatly contradict the popular meshing hypothesis.
We conclude therefore, that at present, there is no adequate evidence base to justify incorporating learning-styles assessments into general educational practice. Thus, limited education resources would better be devoted to adopting other educational practices that have a strong evidence base, of which there are an increasing number. However, given the lack of methodologically sound studies of learning styles, it would be an error to conclude that all possible versions of learning styles have been tested and found wanting; many have simply not been tested at all."
I would happily replace the entire linked article with these two half paragraphs! Note that this means we don't know there isn't learning styles; we just know that those handful of ones so far tested have proven ineffective.
2) That a classroom does better with a math-through-music approach does not mean that all students do better through that. The cited article for this study doesn't appear to make that claim or any claim about the existence of learning styles (but it's paywalled). Clearly a classroom learns better when instructed in a language that the students understand - does that mean that learning styles don't exist?
3) That classes learn best when given a mixture of styles of information does not mean that there are no learning styles. (If you told me that mixing styles improves a class's learning, that would make me think it more likely that learning styles exist - otherwise it's more likely that there's some optimal single method that is better than trying all available methods.)
My main issue is that the article spends an inordinate amount of time discussing the learning process as something that primarily happens within the confines of a teacher-student relationship in a subject-driven, classroom environment.
Humans learn by doing. The best teachers and parents can do is provide feedback and mentorship, where packaged "lessons" with flash cards and rehearsed song and dance are not usually a possibility, and instead feedback is provided on demand and in-context of what the needs of the student are in the exact moment.
When we talk about that the KEY is to integrate different forms of learning or diversity in teaching material: Although it has some uses, we've already abstracted ourselves away from reality and reliance on inherent motivations for learning, ie. IMHO we're already failing at that point.
Re 3: I think it's likely that there are diminishing returns the longer you present material the same way, and that switching it up makes students more interested.
When I read that part, I assumed they were talking about the individual students performing better, not the class in aggregate. If it's student by student, that is (weak) evidence against learning styles.
>> Re 3: I think it's likely that there are diminishing returns the longer you present material the same way, and that switching it up makes students more interested.
Maybe as important, variety helps keep the instructor from losing interest in what he/she is teaching. If the instructor sounds interested, that makes the subject sound interesting, and that undoubtedly is good for learning. See the Hawthorne Effect.
>> When I read that part, I assumed they were talking about the individual students performing better, not the class in aggregate. If it's student by student, that is (weak) evidence against learning styles.
The bigger issue is the the lack of evidence in favor of learning styles. Without supporting evidence, there's no particular reason to believe they exist.
1) The review article cited at the start concludes its abstract with this:
"Although the literature on learning styles is enormous, very few studies have even used an experimental methodology capable of testing the validity of learning styles applied to education. Moreover, of those that did use an appropriate method, several found results that flatly contradict the popular meshing hypothesis.
We conclude therefore, that at present, there is no adequate evidence base to justify incorporating learning-styles assessments into general educational practice. Thus, limited education resources would better be devoted to adopting other educational practices that have a strong evidence base, of which there are an increasing number. However, given the lack of methodologically sound studies of learning styles, it would be an error to conclude that all possible versions of learning styles have been tested and found wanting; many have simply not been tested at all."
I would happily replace the entire linked article with these two half paragraphs! Note that this means we don't know there isn't learning styles; we just know that those handful of ones so far tested have proven ineffective.
2) That a classroom does better with a math-through-music approach does not mean that all students do better through that. The cited article for this study doesn't appear to make that claim or any claim about the existence of learning styles (but it's paywalled). Clearly a classroom learns better when instructed in a language that the students understand - does that mean that learning styles don't exist?
3) That classes learn best when given a mixture of styles of information does not mean that there are no learning styles. (If you told me that mixing styles improves a class's learning, that would make me think it more likely that learning styles exist - otherwise it's more likely that there's some optimal single method that is better than trying all available methods.)