Learning Styles: Would you use a horoscope to decide the best way to educate your child? 'Why are learning styles so popular, given that the concept is built on somewhat dodgy experimental foundations? ...The answer is simple. Learning styles appeal on the same basis as astrology: the comfort of putting things in categories, of giving oneself a label, of being told who one is. Combine this with the implication that there is something vaguely scientific about it and the fact that it is easy to understand, and you have an irresistible package'. (Parkinson. Guardian Education.11 May 04)

The theory that we each have a unique and immutable "learning style" has been found to be empirically unfounded. Its popularity can be explained by the Forer effect (a.k.a. the Barnum effect after P. T. Barnum, who believed that a good circus had "a little something for everybody") and subjective validation. 'Psychologist B.R. Forer found that people tend to accept vague and general personality descriptions as uniquely applicable to themselves without realizing that the same description could be applied to just about anyone'. '(SkepDic.com) Besides the Barnum effect there are other reasons why people believe in learning styles. When charismatic and influential people promote an idea, people tend to trust them. There is also a tendency to support things in which one has invested time and money.

Frank Coffield, professor of education at London's institute of education is also doubtful about the vogue for pigeonholing students by 'learning style': 'Teachers are being told to identify and take account of pupils' individual "learning styles". Yet our research suggests labelling a pupil as, say, a "visual" learner may do them more harm than good. Moreover, as the tools used to split learners into different categories are so unreliable, most such labels seem to be of dubious value.'...One danger of an unthinking use of learning styles is that teachers view a student as being a certain type of learner incapable of learning via another mode; worse still, learners may end up with a limited view of themselves: so-called visual learners could refuse to read books; "auditory" learners be unwilling to watch films or look at paintings; "tactile" learners might insist on an object to touch before they can differentiate between "scepticism" and "cynicism", while "kinaesthetic" learners plead to be allowed to roll on the carpet so the penny drops. Claptrap!... (TES 14/01/05 p28)

''Learning styles are cobblers'', says John White, emeritus professor of Philosophy of Education. ''There is no proof that children have such preferences. They are of use only in describing styles of input, not in terms of defining a child's hard-wired bias for one style over any other. Any suggestion otherwise is palatable only to those for whom the plural of anecdote is evidence''. http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/comment/story/0,,1885799,00.html

http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,,1827622,00.html Wrongly Labelled. 'Practice should be informed by evidence, not by the unexamined hunches of some guru who's making a fortune from peddling poppycock.'

Contributors to a recent document on 'Neuroscience and Education' confirmed Coffield and White's views on learning styles, 'In education, learners may be allocated to one of three types of learning style (Visual, Auditory or Kinesthetic - VAK). Some believe that presenting material in a way that suits an individual’s preferred learning style can improve their learning. (Note that it could also be argued that the reverse might also be helpful, as a remedial intervention to improve processing associated with the other learning styles.) However, there is a considerable scarcity of quality research to support the value of identifying learning styles. A recent psychological investigation of the VAK principle tested recall of information presented in the three different styles. This study showed no benefit from having material presented in one’s preferred learning style, concluding that attempts to focus on learning styles were ‘wasted effort’. Of course, this does not detract from the general value for all learners when teachers present learning materials using a full range of forms and different media. Such an approach can engage the learner and support their learning processes in many different ways, but the existing research does not support labelling children in terms of a particular learning style.'www.tlrp.org/pub/documents/Neuroscience%20Commentary%20FINAL.pdf

Secondary teacher Jim Curran points out that where the teaching of reading is concerned, 'There is no research base for the idea that matching teaching to learning styles produces any noticeable benefit. In 1978, Tarver and Dawson reviewed 15 studies that matched visual learners to sight word approaches and auditory learners to phonics. Thirteen of the studies failed to find an effect, and the two that found an effect used unusual methodology. They concluded: “Modality preference has not been demonstrated to interact significantly with the method of teaching reading”. Kampwirth and Bates in 1980, found 24 studies that looked at this issue. Again, they concluded: “Matching children’s modality strengths to reading materials has not been found to be effective”. In 1987 , Kavale and Forness reviewed 39 studies. They found that matching children by reading styles had nearly no effect on achievement. They concluded. “Although the presumption of matching instructional strategies to individual modality preferences has great intuitive appeal, little empirical support for this proposition was found….. Neither modality testing nor modality teaching were shown to be effective”

'The idea that learning can be improved by matching each learner’s style to a compatible instructional process is widely accepted among educators. It is intuitively appealing, for it caters to individual differences and promises to customize instruction beyond “one size fits all.” It is widely promoted at workshops, on web sites, and in education publications. The trouble is, it is unsupported by rigorous research, conceptually implausible and impractical to implement...'(Prof. Leslie H. Ault. 'Learning Styles? Not Likely!)

In the 'Independent review of the teaching of early reading', Jim Rose wrote, 'The multi-sensory work showed that children generally bring to bear on the learning task as many of their senses as they can, rather than limit themselves to only one sensory pathway. This calls in to question the notion that children can be categorised by a single learning style, be it auditory, visual or kinaesthetic.' (58. Rose Review Final Report)

http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,5500,1495514,00.htmlThe government espouses the theory of learning styles with scant regard to the evidence, says Phil Revell

www.lsda.org.uk/files/PDF/1543.pdf UK research warns against stereotyping people on the basis of their learning styles

http://my.execpc.com/~presswis/tarver.html Reading instruction and learning styles -should they be matched?

www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/fall99/DiffStrokes.pdf A critique of learning styles (pdf)

www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/summer2005/cogsci.htm Do Visual, Auditory, and Kinesthetic Learners Need Visual, Auditory, and Kinesthetic Instruction?

www.nrrf.org/003_auditory_vs_visual.html Auditory Versus Visual Styles of Learning to Read: A False Dichotomy

www.runet.edu/~thompson/obias.html Parents of nasal learners demand odor-based curricula :-)

Multiple Intelligences (MI): The MI theory was first put forward by Professor Howard Gardner in his book Frames of Mind. He suggested that every individual has eight or nine (he is still undecided about the existence of Spiritual Intelligence) intelligences (talents/skills), but in different degrees. As with learning styles, the research base is flawed. John Geake, professor of education at Oxford Brookes university and chair of the Oxford cognitive neuroscience and education forum 'is impatient with attempts to compartmentalise the brain. The theory of 'multiple intelligences' which is influencing some schools' teaching methods gets short shrift. '' Clearly you use the same sorts of brain processes in all subjects and areas at school. It doesn't make sense from a brain point of view to try to be that compartmentalised''.' (Northen. TES. 03/09/04)

Professor John White, is also unhappy about MI theory. He writes, 'The modish multiple intelligences bandwagon is run on flaky, flawed psychology..The idea that children come hard-wired with a whole array of abilities in varying strengths is appealing. But is there any reason to think the theory is true? At the root of MI theory is the same commitment to mental unfolding that fired the child-centred teachers of the 1960s...do we really want children to think that they are born with a talent for music or plaiting raffia or helping people, if there is no solid evidence in favour? (John White TES. 12/11/04)

www.educationnext.org/20043/18.html MI critique: Reframing the Mind

www.igs.net/~cmorris/critiques.html Critiques of MI Theory.

www.illinoisloop.org/mi.html

Peter Medawar: 'the intensity of the conviction that a hypothesis is true has no bearing on whether it is true or not'.

©