Editing Learning styles (section)

===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"/>