Posted on 12/16/2009 2:26:58 PM PST by decimon
There is no evidence supporting auditory and visual learning, psychologists say
Are you a verbal learner or a visual learner? Chances are, you've pegged yourself or your children as either one or the other and rely on study techniques that suit your individual learning needs. And you're not alone— for more than 30 years, the notion that teaching methods should match a student's particular learning style has exerted a powerful influence on education. The long-standing popularity of the learning styles movement has in turn created a thriving commercial market amongst researchers, educators, and the general public.
The wide appeal of the idea that some students will learn better when material is presented visually and that others will learn better when the material is presented verbally, or even in some other way, is evident in the vast number of learning-style tests and teaching guides available for purchase and used in schools. But does scientific research really support the existence of different learning styles, or the hypothesis that people learn better when taught in a way that matches their own unique style?
Unfortunately, the answer is no, according to a major new report published this month in Psychological Science in the Public Interest, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science. The report, authored by a team of eminent researchers in the psychology of learning—Hal Pashler (University of San Diego), Mark McDaniel (Washington University in St. Louis), Doug Rohrer (University of South Florida), and Robert Bjork (University of California, Los Angeles)—reviews the existing literature on learning styles and finds that although numerous studies have purported to show the existence of different kinds of learners (such as "auditory learners" and "visual learners"), those studies have not used the type of randomized research designs that would make their findings credible.
Nearly all of the studies that purport to provide evidence for learning styles fail to satisfy key criteria for scientific validity. Any experiment designed to test the learning-styles hypothesis would need to classify learners into categories and then randomly assign the learners to use one of several different learning methods, and the participants would need to take the same test at the end of the experiment. If there is truth to the idea that learning styles and teaching styles should mesh, then learners with a given style, say visual-spatial, should learn better with instruction that meshes with that style. The authors found that of the very large number of studies claiming to support the learning-styles hypothesis, very few used this type of research design. Of those that did, some provided evidence flatly contradictory to this meshing hypothesis, and the few findings in line with the meshing idea did not assess popular learning-style schemes.
No less than 71 different models of learning styles have been proposed over the years. Most have no doubt been created with students' best interests in mind, and to create more suitable environments for learning. But psychological research has not found that people learn differently, at least not in the ways learning-styles proponents claim. Given the lack of scientific evidence, the authors argue that the currently widespread use of learning-style tests and teaching tools is a wasteful use of limited educational resources.
###
To read further on teaching and learning practices science does support, see the following articles:
"Increasing Retention Without Increasing Study Time" by Doug Rohrer and Hal Pashler in Current Directions in Psychological Science. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118000121/abstract
"The Read-Recite-Review Study Strategy: Effective and Portable" by Mark A. McDaniel, Daniel C. Howard, and Gilles O. Einstein in Psychological Science. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122269051/abstract
"Test-Enhanced Learning: Taking Memory Tests Improves Long-Term Retention" Henry L. Roediger, III, and Jeffrey D. Karpicke in Psychological Science. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118597351/abstract
For a PDF of "Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence" in Psychological Science in the Public Interest, or any of the reports listed above, please contact Ms. Kevin Lyn Sisson at 202-293-9300 x117 or ksisson@psychologicalscience.org.
Interesting.
Thanks for posting.
I tend to try ‘defense in depth’, and getting them to do all kinds of different methods.
for later
Guess you weren't Air Force. ;-)
The APS membership is mostly actual research psychologists rather than psychotherapists and counselors, who are generally far less interested in scientific findings.
Maybe the science isn’t there to prove it on a macro level but I’ve found that I definitely learn better visually than auditorily. Tell me something and it doesn’t stick, draw me a picture and it’s in my head forever.
LQ
A love-of-learning is not important in the ed school world. Only quack pedagogy is important. ...and this comes from one who holds an MA degree and is a certified teacher...but who admits that an MA in Ed is right up there with underwater basket weaving.
I have learned that if my teacher’s sole method of teaching is to stand up in front of me and talk, it is a waste of our time. But I don’t think it is just me.
I need visuals. I need examples. I need analogies. I need to DO things. It is one reason I take notes that I have no intention of ever reading.
I am a retired teacher with 35 years under my belt and I can assure you all the hoopla surrounding IEP’s ( Individual Educational Plans) for students was all hokey pokey . Every time we had a child study team meeting involving parents I felt like I was surrounded by idiots.I made it a point to meet alone with the parents after such meetings and introduce a SANE plan of learning for their children negating the suggestions of the “ ivory tower “ learning experts .
To tell the truth, I’ve never figured out why neither audio nor visual techniques seem to work for m
OH LOOK! A SQUIRREL!
Aha! A true American student you are!
: )
Though if I could have joined a service, that’s the one I would have wanted.
And my brother, the US Marine, would probably have never let me hear the end of it.
Wow. What a mockery this makes of the crown jewels of the modern teaching of teachers.
If you read the article, that's not what they say at all.
They say there's insufficient evidence to believe in them. Not enough evidence is very different from no evidence.
Just one of my pack of pet peeves.
That is almost exactly what I was going write. One example is that I can't understand verbal directions for how to get from here to there but one look at a map and I've got it, often without referring to the map again.
One of the great works on education is written by that fella in your tagline Thomas Sowell (INSIDE AMERICAN EDUCATION).
It seems that the latest analysis doesn’t discredit the hypothesis but only the research methodology and conclusions. At most the hypothesis is now unsupported, but I see nothing here that would argue against it.
I hope you're not a doctor.
I’m a technical trainer and former teacher in public school. I also studied a lot of psychology in college and would consider myself to be a behavioral psychologist if I had pursued it as a career.
There may not be sufficient empirical evidence to support one over the other but, in MY experience, I find that the majority of my students tend to be more visual learners than auditory and both agree that they learn a great deal from the hands-on exercises we incorporate in every class.
For myself, I’m a visual learner. If you just talk to me and tell me how to do something, you’re liable to be interrupted by my snoring!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.