Editing Learning styles (section)

==Criticism==
Learning style theories have been criticized by many scholars and researchers. Some psychologists and neuroscientists have questioned the scientific basis for separating out students based on learning style. According to [[Susan Greenfield]] the practice is "nonsense" from a neuroscientific point of view: "Humans have evolved to build a picture of the world through our senses working in unison, exploiting the immense interconnectivity that exists in the brain."<ref>{{cite news |last=Henry |first=Julie |title=Professor pans 'learning style' teaching method |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1558822/Professor-pans-learning-style-teaching-method.html |access-date=29 August 2010 |newspaper=[[The Telegraph (U.K.)|The Telegraph]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091219060846/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1558822/Professor-pans-learning-style-teaching-method.html |archive-date=19 December 2009 |date=29 July 2007}}</ref> Similarly, Christine Harrington argued that since all students are [[Multisensory learning|multisensory learners]], educators should teach research-based general learning skills.<ref>{{cite web |last=Harrington |first=Christine |date=24 March 2014 |url=https://blog.cengage.com/teach-learning-skills-learning-styles-multi-sensory-learners/ |title=Teach learning skills, not learning styles: we are ALL multi-sensory learners |publisher=[[Cengage]] |access-date=10 March 2019}},</ref>

Since 2012, learning styles have often been referred to as a "neuromyth" in education,<ref>{{cite web |last1=Blanchette Sarrasin |first1=Jérémie |last2=Masson |first2=Steve |date=29 September 2015 |title=Neuromyths in Education |url=https://www.edcan.ca/articles/neuromyths-in-education/ |access-date=18 September 2020 |website=EdCan Network, Canadian Education Association}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Dekker |first1=Sanne |last2=Lee |first2=Nikki C. |last3=Howard-Jones |first3=Paul |last4=Jolles |first4=Jelle |date=18 October 2012 |title=Neuromyths in education: prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers |journal=[[Frontiers in Psychology]] |volume=3 |pages=429 |doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429 |pmc=3475349 |pmid=23087664 |doi-access=free}}</ref> which is believed by up to 89% of educators.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Newton |first1=Philip M. |last2=Salvi |first2=Atharva |date=2020 |title=How Common Is Belief in the Learning Styles Neuromyth, and Does It Matter? A Pragmatic Systematic Review |journal=Frontiers in Education |volume=5 |pages=270 |doi=10.3389/feduc.2020.602451 |issn=2504-284X |doi-access=free}}</ref> There is evidence of empirical and pedagogical problems related to forcing learning tasks to "correspond to differences in a one-to-one fashion".<ref name="Klein">{{cite journal |last=Klein |first=Perry D. |date=January 2003 |title=Rethinking the multiplicity of cognitive resources and curricular representations: alternatives to 'learning styles' and 'multiple intelligences' |journal=Journal of Curriculum Studies |volume=35 |issue=1 |pages=45–81 |doi=10.1080/00220270210141891 |s2cid=144074203}}</ref> Studies contradict the widespread "meshing hypothesis" that a student will learn best if taught in a method deemed appropriate for the student's learning style.<ref name="Pashler" />

Studies further show that teachers cannot assess the learning style of their students accurately.<ref name="Papadatou-Pastou">{{cite journal |last1=Papadatou-Pastou |first1=Marietta |last2=Gritzali |first2=Maria |last3=Barrable |first3=Alexia |date=2018 |title=The learning styles educational neuromyth: lack of agreement between teachers' judgments, self-assessment, and students' intelligence |journal=[[Frontiers in Education]] |volume=3 |doi=10.3389/feduc.2018.00105 |doi-access=free}}</ref> In one study, students were asked to take an inventory of their learning styles. After nearly 400 students completed the inventory, 70% did not use study habits that matched their preferred learning method.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=May |first=Cindi |date=May 29, 2018 |title=The Problem With "Learning Styles" |url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-problem-with-learning-styles/ |website=[[Scientific American]]}}</ref> This study also indicated that students who used study methods that matched their preferred learning style performed no better on tests than students who did not.<ref name=":0" />

Many [[Educational psychology|educational psychologists]] have shown that there is little evidence for the efficacy of most learning style models, and furthermore, that the models often rest on dubious theoretical grounds.<ref name="Curry">{{Cite journal |last= Curry |first=Lynn |date=October 1990 |title=A critique of the research on learning styles |journal=Educational Leadership |volume=48 |issue=2 |pages=50–56}}</ref><ref name="Rohrer">{{cite journal |last1=Rohrer |first1=Doug |last2=Pashler |first2=Harold |date=July 2012 |title=Learning styles: where's the evidence? |journal=Medical Education |volume=46 |issue=7 |pages=634–635 |doi=10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04273.x |pmid=22691144 |s2cid=16676546 |url=http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED535732.pdf}}</ref> According to professor of education Steven Stahl, there has been an "utter failure to find that assessing children's learning styles and matching to instructional methods has any effect on their learning."<ref name="Stahl">{{cite book |last=Stahl |first=Steven A. |date=2004 |chapter=Different strokes for different folks? |editor-last=Abbeduto |editor-first=Leonard |title=Taking sides: clashing views on controversial issues in educational psychology |location=Guilford, CT |publisher=Dushkin/[[McGraw-Hill]] |pages=98–107 |isbn=0072917237 |oclc=53479331 |chapter-url=http://linksprogram.gmu.edu/tutorcorner/NCLC495Readings/Stahl_DifferentStrokes.pdf}}</ref> Professor of education Guy Claxton has questioned the extent that learning styles such as VARK are helpful, particularly as they can have a tendency to label children and therefore restrict learning.<ref>{{cite book |last=Claxton |first=Guy |date=2008 |title=What's the point of school?: rediscovering the heart of education |location=Richmond |publisher=[[Oneworld Publications]] |isbn=9781851686032 |oclc=228582273 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0X3YAQAAQBAJ&q=%22learning+styles%22}}</ref> Similarly, psychologist Kris Vasquez pointed out a number of problems with learning styles, including the lack of empirical evidence that learning styles are useful in producing student achievement, but also her more serious concern that the use of learning styles in the classroom could lead students to develop self-limiting implicit theories about themselves that could become [[Self-fulfilling prophecy|self-fulfilling prophecies]] that are harmful, rather than beneficial, to the goal of serving student diversity.<ref name="Vasquez"/>

Some research has shown that long-term retention can better be achieved under conditions that seem more difficult, and that teaching students only in their preferred learning style is not effective.<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Viskontas |first=Indre |author-link=Indre Viskontas |date=January–February 2020 |title=Dubious Claims in Psychotherapy for Youth |url=https://skepticalinquirer.org/2020/01/dubious-claims-in-psychotherapy-for-youth/ |magazine=[[Skeptical Inquirer]] |location=Amherst |publisher=[[Center for Inquiry]] |volume=44 |issue=1 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20200530144753/https://skepticalinquirer.org/2020/01/creationist-funhouse-episode-three-god-plays-with-atoms/ |archive-date=30 May 2020 |access-date=30 May 2020}}</ref>

Psychologists [[Scott Lilienfeld]], [[Barry Beyerstein]], and colleagues listed as one of the "50 great myths of popular psychology" the idea that "students learn best when teaching styles are matched to their learning styles", and they summarized some relevant reasons not to believe this "myth".<ref name="Lilienfeld"/>

===Other critiques===
Coffield and his colleagues and Mark Smith are not alone in their judgements. In 2005, [[Demos (UK think tank)|Demos]], a UK think tank, published a report on learning styles prepared by a group chaired by [[David Hargreaves (academic)|David Hargreaves]] that included [[Usha Goswami]] from the [[University of Cambridge]] and David Wood from the [[University of Nottingham]]. The Demos report said that the evidence for learning styles was "highly variable", and that practitioners were "not by any means always frank about the evidence for their work".<ref name="Hargreaves">{{cite book |last1=Beere |first1=Jackie |last2=Swindells |first2=Maggie |last3=Wise |first3=Derek |last4=Desforges |first4=Charles |last5=Goswami |first5=Usha |author-link5=Usha Goswami |last6=Wood |first6=David |last7=Horne |first7=Matthew |last8=Lownsbrough |first8=Hannah |last9=Hargreaves |first9=David |author-link9=David Hargreaves (academic) |date=2005 |title=About learning: report of the Learning Working Group |location=London |publisher=[[Demos (UK think tank)|Demos]] |isbn=1841801402 |oclc=59877244 |url=http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/aboutlearning |access-date=2014-05-08 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071222065214/http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/aboutlearning |archive-date=2007-12-22 |url-status=dead }}</ref>{{rp|11}}

Cautioning against interpreting neuropsychological research as supporting the applicability of learning style theory, John Geake, Professor of Education at the UK's [[Oxford Brookes University]], and a research collaborator with [[Oxford University]]'s Centre for Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain, commented in 2005: "We need to take extreme care when moving from the lab to the classroom. We do remember things visually and aurally, but information isn't defined by how it was received."<ref name="Revell">{{cite news|last=Revell |first=Phil |date=30 May 2005 |title=Each to their own |url=http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,,1495514,00.html |newspaper=[[The Guardian]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070304034655/http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0%2C%2C1495514%2C00.html |archive-date= 4 March 2007 |access-date=9 August 2015 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

The work of [[Daniel T. Willingham]], a cognitive psychologist and neuroscientist, has argued that there is not enough evidence to support a theory describing the differences in learning styles amongst students. In his 2009 book ''Why Don't Students Like School'',<ref name="Willingham">{{cite book |last=Willingham |first=Daniel T. |author-link=Daniel T. Willingham |date=2009 |title=Why don't students like school?: a cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom |location=San Francisco, CA |publisher=[[Jossey-Bass]] |isbn=9780470279304 |oclc=255894389 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8SDs8LZl41EC}}</ref> he claimed that a cognitive styles theory must have three features: "it should consistently attribute to a person the same style, it should show that people with different abilities think and learn differently, and it should show that people with different styles do not, on average, differ in ability".<ref name="Willingham"/>{{rp|118}} He concluded that there are no theories that have these three crucial characteristics, not necessarily implying that cognitive styles don't exist but rather stating that psychologists have been unable to "find them".<ref name="Willingham"/>{{rp|118}} In a 2008 self-published [[YouTube]] video titled "Learning Styles Don't Exist", Willingham concluded by saying: "Good teaching is good teaching and teachers don't need to adjust their teaching to individual students' learning styles."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIv9rz2NTUk |title=Learning Styles Don't Exist |date=21 August 2008 |first=Daniel T. |last=Willingham |author-link=Daniel T. Willingham |website=[[YouTube]] |access-date=2020-05-28}}</ref>

===2009 APS critique===
In late 2009, the journal ''[[Psychological Science in the Public Interest]]'' of the [[Association for Psychological Science]] (APS) published a report on the scientific validity of learning styles practices.<ref name="Pashler"/> The panel of experts that wrote the article, led by [[Harold Pashler]] of the [[University of California, San Diego]], concluded that an adequate evaluation of the learning styles hypothesis—the idea that optimal learning demands that students receive instruction tailored to their learning styles—requires a particular kind of study. Specifically, students should be grouped into the learning style categories that are being evaluated (e.g., visual learners vs. verbal learners), and then students in each group must be randomly assigned to one of the learning methods (e.g., visual learning or verbal learning), so that some students will be "matched" and others will be "mismatched". At the end of the experiment, all students must sit for the same test. If the learning style hypothesis is correct, then, for example, visual learners should learn better with the visual method, whereas auditory learners should learn better with the auditory method. As disclosed in the report, the panel found that studies utilizing this essential research design were virtually absent from the learning styles literature. In fact, the panel was able to find only a few studies with this research design, and all but one of these studies were negative findings—that is, they found that the same learning method was superior for all kinds of students.<ref name="Pashler"/> Examples of such negative findings include the research of Laura J. Massa and [[Richard E. Mayer]],<ref name="Massa">{{cite journal |last1=Massa |first1=Laura J. |last2=Mayer |first2=Richard E. |author-link2=Richard E. Mayer |date=2006 |title=Testing the ATI hypothesis: should multimedia instruction accommodate verbalizer-visualizer cognitive style? |journal=[[Learning and Individual Differences]] |volume=16 |issue=4 |pages=321–335 |doi=10.1016/j.lindif.2006.10.001 |url=http://people.cs.vt.edu/~shaffer/cs6604/Papers/Validity_2006.pdf}}</ref> as well as more recent research since the 2009 review.<ref name="Willingham2015"/><ref>{{cite journal |last=Kollöffel |first=Bas |date=February 2012 |title=Exploring the relation between visualizer–verbalizer cognitive styles and performance with visual or verbal learning material |journal=Computers & Education |volume=58 |issue=2 |pages=697–706 |doi=10.1016/j.compedu.2011.09.016}}</ref><ref name="Rogowsky">A 2015 study found no statistically significant improvement in student comprehension when instruction methods were related to learning style preferences; the researchers argued that "educators may actually be doing a disservice to auditory learners by continually accommodating their auditory learning style preference" (p.&nbsp;77) since most testing is presented in a written word format only, and therefore all students should have strong visual word skills. See: {{cite journal |last1=Rogowsky |first1=Beth A. |last2=Calhoun |first2=Barbara M. |last3=Tallal |first3=Paula |author-link3=Paula Tallal |date=2015 |title=Matching learning style to instructional method: effects on comprehension |journal=[[Journal of Educational Psychology]] |volume=107 |issue=1 |pages=64–78 |doi=10.1037/a0037478|url=https://zenodo.org/record/977853}}</ref>

Furthermore, the panel noted that, even if the requisite finding were obtained, the benefits would need to be large, and not just statistically significant, before learning style interventions could be recommended as cost-effective. That is, the cost of evaluating and classifying students by their learning style, and then providing customized instruction would need to be more beneficial than other interventions (e.g., one-on-one tutoring, after school remediation programs, etc.).<ref name="Pashler"/>{{rp|116–117}}

As a consequence, the panel concluded, "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 strong evidence base, of which there are an increasing number."<ref name="Pashler" />{{rp|105}}

The article incited critical comments from some defenders of learning styles. ''[[The Chronicle of Higher Education]]'' reported that [[Robert Sternberg]] from [[Tufts University]] spoke out against the paper: "Several of the most-cited researchers on learning styles, Mr. Sternberg points out, do not appear in the paper's bibliography."<ref name="Glenn">{{cite journal |last=Glenn |first=David |date=15 December 2009 |title=Matching teaching style to learning style may not help students |journal=[[The Chronicle of Higher Education]] |url=http://chronicle.com/article/Matching-Teaching-Style-to/49497/ |access-date=24 February 2010}}</ref> This charge was also discussed by ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'', which reported that Pashler said, "Just so... most of [the evidence] is 'weak'."<ref>{{cite journal |last=Holden |first=Constance |date=8 January 2010 |title=Learning with style |journal=[[Science (journal)|Science]] |volume=327 |issue=5692 |pages=129.2–129 |url=http://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/Learning_With_Style-Science.pdf |doi=10.1126/science.327.5962.129-b}}</ref> ''The Chronicle'' reported that even [[David A. Kolb]] partly agreed with Pashler; Kolb said: "The paper correctly mentions the practical and ethical problems of sorting people into groups and labeling them. Tracking in education has a bad history."<ref name="Glenn"/>

=== Subsequent critiques ===
A 2013 study pointed out that Kolb's Learning Style Inventory, among its other weaknesses, incorrectly dichotomizes individuals on the abstract/concrete and reflective/action dimensions of experiential learning (in much the same way as the [[Myers-Briggs Type Indicator]] does in a different context), and proposed instead that these dimensions be treated as continuous rather than dichotomous/[[binary data|binary variables]].<ref name="Manolis" />{{rp|44}}

In an article that addressed Kolb's work through 2005, Mark K. Smith reviewed some critiques of Kolb's model, and identified six key issues regarding the model:<ref name="Smith">{{cite web |last=Smith |first=Mark K. |date=2010 |title=David A. Kolb on experiential learning |url=https://infed.org/david-a-kolb-on-experiential-learning/ |access-date=9 August 2015 |website=infed.org}}</ref>
# The model doesn't adequately address the process of reflection;
# The claims it makes about the four learning styles are extravagant;
# It doesn't sufficiently address the fact of different cultural conditions and experiences;
# The idea of stages/steps doesn't necessarily match reality;
# It has only weak empirical evidence;
# The relationship between learning processes and knowledge is more complex than Kolb draws it.
A 2015 review paper<ref name="Cuevas2015">{{cite journal |last=Cuevas |first=Joshua |date=November 2015 |title=Is learning styles-based instruction effective?: a comprehensive analysis of recent research on learning styles |journal=[[Theory and Research in Education]] |volume=13 |issue=3 |pages=308–333 |doi=10.1177/1477878515606621|s2cid=146462452 }}</ref> examined the studies of learning styles completed after the 2009 APS critique,<ref name="Pashler"/> giving particular attention to studies that used the experimental methods advocated for by Pashler et al.<ref name="Cuevas2015"/> The findings were similar to those of the APS critique: the evidence for learning styles was virtually nonexistent while evidence contradicting it was both more prevalent and used more sound methodology.<ref name="Cuevas2015"/> Follow-up studies concluded that learning styles had no effect on student retention of material whereas another explanation, dual coding, had a substantial impact on it and held more potential for practical application in the classroom.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cuevas |first1=Joshua |last2=Dawson |first2=Bryan L. |date=March 2018 |title=A test of two alternative cognitive processing models: learning styles and dual coding |journal=[[Theory and Research in Education]] |volume=16 |issue=1 |pages=40–64 |doi=10.1177/1477878517731450 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

A 2017 research paper from the UK found that 90% of academics agreed there are "basic conceptual flaws" with learning styles theory, yet 58% agreed that students "learn better when they receive information in their preferred learning style", and 33% reported that they used learning styles as a method in the past year.<ref name=Frontiers2017/> It concluded that it might be better to use methods that are "demonstrably effective".<ref name=Frontiers2017>{{cite journal |last1=Newton |first1=Philip M. |last2=Miah |first2=Mahallad |date=2017 |title=Evidence-based higher education—is the learning styles 'myth' important? |journal=[[Frontiers in Psychology]] |volume=8 |pages=444 |doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00444 |pmid=28396647 |pmc=5366351|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Nancekivell |first1=Shaylene E. |last2=Shah |first2=Priti |last3=Gelman |first3=Susan A. |date=2020 |title=Maybe they're born with it, or maybe it's experience: toward a deeper understanding of the learning style myth |journal=[[Journal of Educational Psychology]] |volume=112 |issue=2 |pages=221–235 |doi=10.1037/edu0000366 |s2cid=191740592 |url=https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/edu-edu0000366.pdf}}</ref>