View source for Social:Learning styles

{{short description|Largely debunked theories that aim to account for differences in individuals' learning}}
'''Learning styles''' refer to a range of competing and debunked theories that aim to account for differences in individuals' [[Learning|learning]].<ref name="Coffield">{{cite book|url=http://sxills.nl/lerenlerennu/bronnen/Learning%20styles%20by%20Coffield%20e.a..pdf|title=Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: a systematic and critical review|last2=Moseley|first2=David|last3=Hall|first3=Elaine|last4=Ecclestone|first4=Kathryn|date=2004|publisher=Learning and Skills Research Centre|isbn=1853389188|location=London|oclc=505325671|last1=Coffield|first1=Frank|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304072804/http://sxills.nl/lerenlerennu/bronnen/Learning%20styles%20by%20Coffield%20e.a..pdf|archive-date=2016-03-04}}</ref> Many theories share the proposition that humans can be classified according to their 'style' of learning, but differ in how the proposed styles should be defined, categorized and assessed.<ref name="Coffield"/>{{rp|8}} A common concept is that individuals differ in how they learn.<ref name="Willingham2015">{{cite journal |last1=Willingham |first1=Daniel T. |last2=Hughes |first2=Elizabeth M. |last3=Dobolyi |first3=David G. |date=July 2015 |title=The scientific status of learning styles theories |journal=Teaching of Psychology |volume=42 |issue=3 |pages=266–271 |doi=10.1177/0098628315589505|s2cid=146126992 }}</ref>{{rp|266}}

The idea of individualized learning styles became popular in the 1970s,<ref>In one extensive list of learning-styles instruments and theories {{harv|Coffield|Moseley|Hall|Ecclestone|2004|pp=166–169}}, the authors listed three works on learning styles before the 1950s, four from the 1950s, seven from the 1960s, 21 from the 1970s, 22 from the 1980s, and 17 from the 1990s.</ref> and has greatly influenced education despite the criticism that the idea has received from some researchers.<ref name="Pashler">{{Cite journal|last1=Pashler|first1=Harold|last2=McDaniel|first2=Mark|last3=Rohrer|first3=Doug|last4=Bjork|first4=Robert A.|author-link4=Robert A. Bjork|date=December 2008|title=Learning styles: concepts and evidence|journal=Psychological Science in the Public Interest|volume=9|issue=3|pages=105–119|doi=10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x|pmid=26162104|s2cid=2112166|doi-access=free}}</ref>{{rp|107–108}} Proponents recommend that teachers have to run a needs analysis to assess the learning styles of their students and adapt their classroom methods to best fit each student's learning style.<ref>{{cite book |last=Pritchard |first=Alan |date=2014 |orig-year=2005 |chapter=Learning styles |title=Ways of learning: learning theories and learning styles in the classroom |edition=3rd |location=Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon; New York |publisher=[[Company:Routledge|Routledge]] |isbn=9780415834926 |oclc=853494423 |pages=46–65 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yOZJAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA46}}</ref> Although there is ample evidence that individuals express personal preferences for how they prefer to receive information,<ref name="Pashler"/>{{rp|108}} few studies have found any validity in using learning styles in education.<ref name="Willingham2015"/>{{rp|267}} Critics say there is no consistent evidence that identifying an individual student's learning style and teaching for specific learning styles produces better student outcomes.<ref name="Pashler"/><ref name="Vasquez">{{cite book |last=Vasquez |first=Kris |date=2009 |chapter=Learning styles as self-fulfilling prophecies |editor1-last=Gurung |editor1-first=Regan A. R. |editor2-last=Prieto |editor2-first=Loreto R. |title=Getting culture: incorporating diversity across the curriculum |location=Sterling, VA |publisher=Stylus |pages=53–63 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_cXgV4AzVDcC&pg=PA53 |isbn=9781579222796 |oclc=228374299}}</ref>{{rp|33}} 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|url=https://www.edcan.ca/articles/neuromyths-in-education/ |title=Neuromyths in Education |website=EdCan Network, Canadian Education Association |access-date=18 September 2020}}</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 |pmid=23087664 |pmc=3475349}}</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"/> However, a 2020 systematic review suggested that a majority (89%) of educators around the world continue to believe that the meshing hypothesis is correct. <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Newton|first=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|url=https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/feduc.2020.602451|journal=Frontiers in Education|volume=5|pages=270|doi=10.3389/feduc.2020.602451|issn=2504-284X}}</ref> 

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>

==Overview of models==
There are many different learning styles models; one literature review identified 71 different models.<ref name="Coffield" />{{rp|166–168}} Only a few models are described below.

===David Kolb's model===
David A. Kolb's model is based on his [[Social:Experiential learning|experiential learning]] model, as explained in his book ''Experiential Learning''.<ref name="Kolb">{{cite book |last=Kolb |first=David A. |date=2015 |orig-year=1984 |title=Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development |edition=2nd |location=Upper Saddle River, NJ |publisher=Pearson Education |isbn=9780133892406 |oclc=909815841 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=o6DfBQAAQBAJ}}</ref> Kolb's model outlines two related approaches toward grasping experience: ''Concrete Experience'' and ''Abstract Conceptualization'', as well as two related approaches toward transforming experience: ''Reflective Observation'' and ''Active Experimentation''.<ref name="Kolb"/>{{rp|145}} According to Kolb's model, the ideal learning process engages all four of these modes in response to situational demands; they form a [[Philosophy:Learning cycle|learning cycle]] from experience to observation to conceptualization to experimentation and back to experience. In order for learning to be effective, Kolb postulated, all four of these approaches must be incorporated. As individuals attempt to use all four approaches, they may tend to develop strengths in one experience-grasping approach and one experience-transforming approach, leading them to prefer one of the following four learning styles:<ref name="Kolb"/>{{rp|127}}<ref name="SmithKolb1986">{{cite book |last1=Smith |first1=Donna M. |last2=Kolb |first2=David A. |author-link2=David A. Kolb |date=1996 |orig-year=1986 |title=User's guide for the learning-style inventory: a manual for teachers and trainers |location=Boston |publisher=McBer |isbn=9780133892406 |oclc=38505355}}</ref>

# Accommodator = ''Concrete Experience + Active Experiment'': strong in "hands-on" practical doing (e.g., physical therapists)
# Converger = ''Abstract Conceptualization + Active Experiment'': strong in practical "hands-on" application of theories (e.g., [[Engineering:Engineer|engineer]]s)
# Diverger = ''Concrete Experience + Reflective Observation'': strong in imaginative ability and discussion (e.g., social workers)
# Assimilator = ''Abstract Conceptualization + Reflective Observation'': strong in inductive reasoning and creation of theories (e.g., [[Biography:Philosopher|philosopher]]s)

Kolb's model gave rise to the Learning Style Inventory, an assessment method used to determine an individual's learning style. According to this model, individuals may exhibit a preference for one of the four styles—Accommodating, Converging, Diverging and Assimilating—depending on their approach to learning in Kolb's experiential learning model.<ref name="Kolb"/>

Although Kolb's model is widely used, 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 variables.<ref name="Manolis">{{cite journal |last1=Manolis |first1=Chris |last2=Burns |first2=David J. |last3=Assudani |first3=Rashmi |last4=Chinta |first4=Ravi |date=February 2013 |title=Assessing experiential learning styles: a methodological reconstruction and validation of the Kolb Learning Style Inventory |journal=Learning and Individual Differences |volume=23 |pages=44–52 |doi=10.1016/j.lindif.2012.10.009 |url=http://research.phoenix.edu/sites/default/files/publication-files/2012-Manolis%20et%20al(2012).pdf}}</ref>{{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.

===Peter Honey and Alan Mumford's model===
Peter Honey and Alan Mumford adapted Kolb's experiential learning model. First, they renamed the stages in the [[Philosophy:Learning cycle|learning cycle]] to accord with managerial experiences: ''having'' an experience, ''reviewing'' the experience, ''concluding'' from the experience, and ''planning'' the next steps.<ref name="Mumford">{{cite book |last=Mumford |first=Alan |chapter=Putting learning styles to work |title=Action learning at work |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rgOoHgxObfwC&pg=PA121 |year=1997 |publisher=Gower |location=Aldershot, Hampshire; Brookfield, VT |pages=121–135 |isbn=0566078902 |oclc=35777384}}</ref>{{rp|121–122}} Second, they aligned these stages to four learning styles named:<ref name="Mumford"/>{{rp|122–124}}

# Activist
# Reflector
# Theorist 
# Pragmatist

These four learning styles are assumed to be acquired preferences that are adaptable, either at will or through changed circumstances, rather than being fixed personality characteristics. Honey and Mumford's Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ)<ref>{{cite book |last1=Honey |first1=Peter |last2=Mumford |first2=Alan |date=2006 |title=Learning styles questionnaire: 80-item version |location=London |publisher=Maidenhead |isbn=1902899296 |oclc=889619009}}</ref> is a self-development tool and differs from Kolb's Learning Style Inventory by inviting managers to complete a checklist of work-related behaviours without directly asking managers how they learn. Having completed the self-assessment, managers are encouraged to focus on strengthening underutilised styles in order to become better equipped to learn from a wide range of everyday experiences.

A MORI survey commissioned by The Campaign for Learning in 1999 found the Honey and Mumford LSQ to be the most widely used system for assessing preferred learning styles in the local government sector in the UK.{{Citation needed|date=August 2015}}

===Learning modalities===
Walter Burke Barbe and colleagues proposed three learning modalities (often identified by the acronym VAK):<ref name="Barbe1979">{{cite book |last1=Barbe |first1=Walter Burke |last2=Swassing |first2=Raymond H. |last3=Milone |first3=Michael N. |date=1979 |title=Teaching through modality strengths: concepts practices |location=Columbus, Ohio |publisher=Zaner-Bloser |isbn=0883091003 |oclc=5990906}}</ref>

# Visualising modality
# Auditory modality
# Kinesthetic modality

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Descriptions of learning modalities
|-
! Visual !! Kinesthetic/tactile !! Auditory
|-
| Picture || Gestures || Listening
|-
| Shape || Body movements || Rhythms 
|-
| Sculpture || Object manipulation || Tone
|-
| Paintings || Positioning || Chants
|}

Barbe and colleagues reported that learning modality strengths can occur independently or in combination (although the most frequent modality strengths, according to their research, are visual or mixed), they can change over time, and they become integrated with age.<ref name="Barbe1981">{{cite journal |last1=Barbe |first1=Walter Burke |last2=Milone |first2=Michael N. |title=What we know about modality strengths |journal=Educational Leadership |publisher=Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development |date=February 1981 |pages=378–380 |url=http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_198102_barbe.pdf}}</ref> They also pointed out that learning modality ''strengths'' are different from ''preferences''; a person's self-reported modality preference may not correspond to their empirically measured modality strength.<ref name="Barbe1981"/>{{rp|378}} This disconnect between strengths and preferences was confirmed by a subsequent study.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Krätzig |first1=Gregory P. |last2=Arbuthnott |first2=Katherine D. |date=February 2006 |title=Perceptual learning style and learning proficiency: a test of the hypothesis |journal=Journal of Educational Psychology |volume=98 |issue=1 |pages=238–246 |doi=10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.238}}</ref> Nevertheless, some scholars have criticized the VAK model.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Sharp |first1=John G. |last2=Bowker |first2=Rob |last3=Byrne |first3=Jenny |date=September 2008 |title=VAK or VAK-uous?: towards the trivialisation of learning and the death of scholarship |journal=Research Papers in Education |volume=23 |issue=3 |pages=293–314 |doi=10.1080/02671520701755416|s2cid=11499636 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Franklin |first=Shirley |date=March 2006 |title=VAKing out learning styles—why the notion of 'learning styles' is unhelpful to teachers |journal=Education 3–13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education |volume=34 |issue=1 |pages=81–87 |doi=10.1080/03004270500507644|s2cid=143207758 }}</ref> Psychologist [[Biography:Scott Lilienfeld|Scott Lilienfeld]] and colleagues have argued that much use of the VAK model is nothing more than [[Unsolved:Pseudoscience|pseudoscience]] or a psychological [[Social:Urban legend|urban legend]].<ref name="Lilienfeld">{{cite book |last1=Lilienfeld |first1=Scott O. |last2=Lynn |first2=Steven Jay |last3=Ruscio |first3=John |last4=Beyerstein |first4=Barry L. |author-link4=Barry Beyerstein |date=2010 |chapter=Myth #18: Students learn best when teaching styles are matched to their learning styles |title=50 great myths of popular psychology: shattering widespread misconceptions about human behavior |location=Chichester, UK; Malden, MA |publisher=[[Company:Wiley-Blackwell|Wiley-Blackwell]] |isbn=9781405131117 |oclc=396172891 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8DlS0gfO_QUC&pg=PT85 |pages=92–99}}</ref>

===Neil Fleming's VAK/VARK model===
<!--This section is linked from Neil Fleming, [[Visual learning]], [[Social:Auditory learning|Auditory learning]], [[Social:Kinesthetic learning|Kinesthetic learning]] (MOS:HEAD)-->
Neil Fleming's VARK model and inventory<ref name="Leite">{{cite journal |last1=Leite |first1=Walter L. |last2=Svinicki |first2=Marilla |last3=Shi |first3=Yuying |date=April 2010 |title=Attempted validation of the scores of the VARK: learning styles inventory with multitrait–multimethod confirmatory factor analysis models |journal=Educational and Psychological Measurement |volume=70 |issue=2 |pages=323–339 |doi=10.1177/0013164409344507|s2cid=144889213 }}</ref> expanded upon earlier notions of sensory modalities such as the VAK model of Barbe and colleagues<ref name="Barbe1979"/> and the representational systems (VAKOG) in [[Unsolved:Neuro-linguistic programming|neuro-linguistic programming]].<ref>{{cite book |last=Fleming |first=Neil D. |date=July 1995 |chapter=I'm different; not dumb: modes of presentation (VARK) in the tertiary classroom |editor1-last=Zelmer |editor1-first=A. C. Lynn |editor2-last=Zelmer |editor2-first=Amy Elliott |title=Higher education: blending tradition and technology: proceedings of the 1995 Annual Conference of the Higher Education and Research Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA) |series=Research and development in higher education |volume=18 |location=Rockhampton |publisher=Professional Education Centre, Faculty of Health Science, Central Queensland University |pages=308–313 |isbn=9780133892406 |oclc=154135362 |quote=Those skilled in using neuro-linguistic programming (N.L.P.) and left-brain, right brain theorists have been claiming that the visual, aural, kinesthetic preferences (V,A,K) follow through into creativity, spatial abilities and even vocabulary usage... In addition to the usual three part modal divisions (visual, kinesthetic and aural) a fourth category, the read-writers, has been added for our questionnaire. |chapter-url=http://www.vark-learn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/different_not_dumb.pdf}}</ref> The four sensory modalities in Fleming's model are:<ref name="VARK">{{cite web |last=Fleming |first=Neil D. |author-link=Neil Fleming |title=The VARK modalities |url=http://vark-learn.com/introduction-to-vark/the-vark-modalities/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150314235648/http://vark-learn.com/introduction-to-vark/the-vark-modalities/ |website=vark-learn.com |date=2014 |archive-date=14 March 2015 |access-date=9 August 2015}}</ref>

# [[Visual learning]]
# [[Social:Auditory learning|Auditory learning]]
# [[Social:Kinesthetic learning|Physical learning]]
# [[Philosophy:Observational learning|Social learning]]

Fleming claimed that [[Visual learning|visual learners]] have a preference for seeing (visual aids that represent ideas using methods other than words, such as graphs, charts, diagrams, symbols, etc.). Subsequent [[Biology:Neuroimaging|neuroimaging]] research has suggested that visual learners convert words into images in the brain and vice versa,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kraemer |first1=David J. M. |last2=Rosenberg |first2=Lauren M. |last3=Thompson-Schill |first3=Sharon L. |date=March 2009 |title=The neural correlates of visual and verbal cognitive styles |journal=The Journal of Neuroscience |volume=29 |issue=12 |pages=3792–3798 |doi=10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4635-08.2009 |pmid=19321775 |pmc=2697032}} Also reported in: {{cite web |date=28 March 2009 |title=Visual learners convert words to pictures in the brain and vice versa, says psychology study |url=https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090325091834.htm |publisher=Science Daily |access-date=26 September 2016}}</ref> but some psychologists have argued that this "is not an instance of learning styles, rather, it is an instance of ability appearing as a style".<ref name="Willingham2015"/>{{rp|268}} Likewise, Fleming claimed that [[Social:Auditory learning|auditory learners]] best learn through listening (lectures, discussions, tapes, etc.), and [[Social:Kinesthetic learning|tactile/kinesthetic learners]] prefer to learn via experience—moving, touching, and doing (active exploration of the world, science projects, experiments, etc.).<ref name="VARK"/> Students can use the model and inventory to identify their preferred learning style and, it is claimed, improve their learning by focusing on the mode that benefits them the most.<ref name="VARK"/> Fleming's model also posits two types of multimodality.<ref name="VARK"/> This means that not everyone has one defined preferred modality of learning; some people may have a mixture that makes up their preferred learning style.<ref name="VARK"/>

===Anthony Gregorc's model===
Anthony Gregorc and Kathleen Butler organized a model describing different learning styles rooted in the way individuals acquire and process information differently.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Butler |first1=Kathleen Ann |last2=Gregorc |first2=Anthony F. |date=1988 |title=It's all in your mind: a student's guide to learning style |location=Columbia, CT |publisher=Learner's Dimension |isbn=0945852010 |oclc=20848567}}</ref> This model posits that an individual's perceptual abilities are the foundation of his or her specific learning strengths, or learning styles.<ref name="Anderson">{{cite web |last=Anderson |first=Margaret |title=Mind Styles: Anthony Gregorc |url=http://web.cortland.edu/andersmd/learning/Gregorc.htm |website=cortland.edu |date=3 February 2004 |access-date=9 August 2015}}</ref>

In this model, there are two perceptual qualities: ''concrete'' and ''abstract'', and two ordering abilities: ''random'' and ''sequential''.<ref name="Anderson"/> Concrete perceptions involve registering information through the five senses, while abstract perceptions involve the understanding of ideas, qualities, and concepts which cannot be seen. In regard to the two ordering abilities, sequential ordering involves the organization of information in a linear, logical way, and random ordering involves the organization of information in chunks and in no specific order.<ref name="Anderson"/> The model posits that both of the perceptual qualities and both of the ordering abilities are present in each individual, but some qualities and ordering abilities are more dominant within certain individuals.<ref name="Anderson"/>

There are four combinations of perceptual qualities and ordering abilities based on dominance: ''concrete sequential'', ''abstract random'', ''abstract sequential'', and ''concrete random''. The model posits that individuals with different combinations learn in different ways—they have different strengths, different things make sense to them, different things are difficult for them, and they ask different questions throughout the learning process.<ref name="Anderson"/>

The [[Test validity|validity]] of Gregorc's model has been questioned by Thomas Reio and Albert Wiswell following experimental trials.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Reio |first1=Thomas G. |last2=Wiswell |first2=Albert K. |date=June 2006 |title=An examination of the factor structure and construct validity of the Gregorc Style Delineator |journal=Educational and Psychological Measurement |volume=66 |issue=3 |pages=489–501 |doi=10.1177/0013164405282459|s2cid=146783750 }}</ref> Gregorc argues that his critics have "scientifically-limited views" and that they wrongly repudiate the "mystical elements" of "the spirit" that can only be discerned by a "subtle human instrument".<ref name="Gregorc">{{cite web |last=Gregorc |first=Anthony F. |title=Frequently asked questions on style |url=http://gregorc.com/faq.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150504072936/http://gregorc.com/faq.html |website=gregorc.com |date=29 January 2015 |archive-date=4 May 2015 |access-date=9 August 2015}}</ref>

===Cognitive approaches===
Anthony Grasha and Sheryl Riechmann, in 1974, formulated the Grasha-Reichmann Learning Style Scale.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Riechmann |first1=Sheryl Wetter |last2=Grasha |first2=Anthony F. |date=July 1974 |title=A rational approach to developing and assessing the construct validity of a student learning style scales instrument |journal=The Journal of Psychology |volume=87 |issue=2 |pages=213–223 |doi=10.1080/00223980.1974.9915693}}</ref> It was developed to analyze the attitudes of students and how they approach learning. The test was originally designed to provide teachers with insight on how to approach instructional plans for college students.<ref>{{cite book |last=Grasha |first=Anthony F. |date=1996 |title=Teaching with style: a practical guide to enhancing learning by understanding teaching and learning styles |series=Curriculum for change series |location=Pittsburgh |publisher=Alliance Publishers |isbn=0964507110 |oclc=34349818}}</ref> Grasha's background was in cognitive processes and [[Social:Coping (psychology)|coping]] techniques. Unlike some models of cognitive styles which are relatively nonjudgmental, Grasha and Riechmann distinguish between adaptive and maladaptive styles. The names of Grasha and Riechmann's learning styles are:

*avoidant
*participative
*competitive
*collaborative
*dependent
*independent

Aiming to explain why aptitude tests, school grades, and classroom performance often fail to identify real ability, [[Biography:Robert Sternberg|Robert Sternberg]] listed various cognitive dimensions in his book ''Thinking Styles''.<ref>{{cite book |last=Sternberg |first=Robert J. |date=1997 |title=Thinking styles |location=Cambridge, UK; New York |publisher={{wipe|Cambridge University Press}} |isbn=0521553164 |oclc=36315844 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dgxBqGIfJjAC}}</ref> Several other models are also often used when researching [[Philosophy:Cognitive style|cognitive style]]s; some of these models are described in books that Sternberg co-edited, such as ''Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles''.<ref>{{cite book |editor1-last=Sternberg |editor1-first=Robert J. |editor1-link=Robert Sternberg |editor2-last=Zhang |editor2-first=Li-fang |date=2001 |title=Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles |location=Mahwah, NJ |publisher=Lawrence Erlbaum Associates |isbn=0805834303 |oclc=44619517 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YMeQAgAAQBAJ}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |editor1-last=Zhang |editor1-first=Li-fang |editor2-last=Sternberg |editor2-first=Robert J. |editor2-link=Robert Sternberg |date=2009 |title=Perspectives on the nature of intellectual styles |location=New York |publisher=[[Company:Springer Publishing|Springer Publishing]] |isbn=9780826104601 |oclc=301893408 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6drSmW4AbfEC}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |editor1-last=Zhang |editor1-first=Li-fang |editor2-last=Sternberg |editor2-first=Robert J. |editor2-link=Robert Sternberg |editor3-last=Rayner |editor3-first=Stephen |date=2012 |title=Handbook of intellectual styles: preferences in cognition, learning, and thinking |location=New York |publisher=[[Company:Springer Publishing|Springer Publishing]] |isbn=9780826106674 |oclc=714734148 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Og8rJGaXCDwC}}</ref>

===NASSP model===
In the 1980s, the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) formed a task force to study learning styles.<ref name="Keefe1985">{{cite journal |last=Keefe |first=James W. |date=March 1985 |title=Assessment of learning style variables: the NASSP task force model |journal=Theory into Practice |volume=24 |issue=2 |pages=138–144 |jstor=1476430 |doi=10.1080/00405848509543162}}</ref> The task force defined three broad categories of style—cognitive, affective, and physiological—and 31 variables, including the perceptual strengths and preferences from the VAK model of Barbe and colleagues,<ref name="Barbe1981"/> but also many other variables such as need for structure, types of motivation, time of day preferences, and so on.<ref name="Keefe1985"/>{{rp|141–143}} They defined a learning style as "a ''[[Holism|gestalt]]''—not an amalgam of related characteristics but greater than any of its parts. It is a composite of internal and external operations based in neurobiology, personality, and human development and reflected in learner behavior."<ref name="Keefe1985"/>{{rp|141}}

* Cognitive styles are preferred ways of perception, organization and retention.
* Affective styles represent the motivational dimensions of the learning personality; each learner has a personal motivational approach.
* Physiological styles are bodily states or predispositions, including sex-related differences, health and nutrition, and reaction to physical surroundings, such as preferences for levels of light, sound, and temperature.<ref name="Keefe1985"/>{{rp|141}}

According to the NASSP task force, styles are hypothetical constructs that help to explain the learning (and teaching) process. They posited that one can recognize the learning style of an individual student by observing his or her behavior.<ref name="Keefe1985"/>{{rp|138}} Learning has taken place only when one observes a relatively stable change in learner behavior resulting from what has been experienced.

==Assessment methods==
A 2004 non-peer-reviewed literature review criticized most of the main instruments used to identify an individual's learning style.<ref name="Coffield" /> In conducting the review, Frank Coffield and his colleagues selected 13 of the most influential models of the 71 models they identified,<ref name="Coffield" />{{rp|8–9}} including most of the models described in this article. They examined the theoretical origins and terms of each model, and the instrument that purported to assess individuals against the learning styles defined by the model. They analyzed the claims made by the author(s), external studies of these claims, and independent empirical evidence of the relationship between the learning style identified by the instrument and students' actual learning. Coffield's team found that none of the most popular learning style theories had been adequately validated through independent research.  This means that even if the underlying theories were sound, educators are frequently unable to correctly identify the theoretically correct learning style for any given student, so the theory would end up being misapplied in practice.

===Learning Style Inventory===
The Learning Style Inventory (LSI) is connected with David A. Kolb's model and is used to determine a student's learning style.<ref name="SmithKolb1986"/> Previous versions of the LSI have been criticized for problems with validity, reliability, and other issues.<ref name="Manolis"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Koob |first1=Jeffrey J. |last2=Funk |first2=Joanie |date=March 2002 |title=Kolb's learning style inventory: issues of reliability and validity |journal=[[Social:Research on Social Work Practice|Research on Social Work Practice]] |volume=12 |issue=2 |pages=293–308 |doi=10.1177/104973150201200206 |s2cid=17548610 |url=http://www.bu.edu/ssw/files/2010/10/Kolbs-Learning-Style-Inventory-Issues-of-Reliability-and-Validity1.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Metallidou |first1=Panayiota |last2=Platsidou |first2=Maria |date=2008 |title=Kolb's Learning Style Inventory-1985: validity issues and relations with metacognitive knowledge about problem-solving strategies |journal=Learning and Individual Differences |volume=18 |issue=1 |pages=114–119 |doi=10.1016/j.lindif.2007.11.001 |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229383282}}</ref> Version 4 of the Learning Style Inventory replaces the four learning styles of previous versions with nine new learning styles: initiating, experiencing, imagining, reflecting, analyzing, thinking, deciding, acting, and balancing.<ref name="LSI4">{{cite web |title=Kolb learning style inventory (KLSI), version 4 online: description |url=http://www.haygroup.com/leadershipandtalentondemand/ourproducts/item_details.aspx?itemid=118&type=2&t=2 |website=haygroup.com |access-date=9 August 2015}}</ref> The LSI is intended to help employees or students "understand how their learning style impacts upon problem solving, teamwork, handling conflict, communication and career choice; develop more learning flexibility; find out why teams work well—or badly—together; strengthen their overall learning."<ref name="LSI4"/>

A completely different Learning Styles Inventory is associated with a binary division of learning styles, developed by Richard Felder and Linda Silverman.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Felder |first1=Richard M. |last2=Silverman |first2=Linda K. |date=January 1988 |title=Learning and teaching styles in engineering education |journal=Engineering Education |volume=78 |issue=7 |pages=674–81 |url=http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/LS-1988.pdf}}</ref> In Felder and Silverman's model, learning styles are a balance between pairs of extremes such as: Active/Reflective, Sensing/Intuitive, Verbal/Visual, and Sequential/Global. Students receive four scores describing these balances.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.engr.ncsu.edu/learningstyles/ilsweb.html |title=Index of learning styles questionnaire |first1=Barbara A. |last1=Soloman |first2=Richard M. |last2=Felder |publisher=[[Organization:North Carolina State University|North Carolina State University]] |access-date=1 November 2012}}</ref> Like the LSI mentioned above, this inventory provides overviews and synopses for teachers.

===NASSP Learning Style Profile===
The NASSP Learning Style Profile (LSP) is a second-generation instrument for the diagnosis of student cognitive styles, perceptual responses, and study and instructional preferences.<ref name="KeefeMonk1988">{{cite book |last1=Keefe |first1=James W. |last2=Monk |first2=John S. |date=1988 |title=Learning style profile: technical manual |location=Reston, VA |publisher=National Association of Secondary School Principals |isbn=0882102133 |oclc=22143235}}</ref> The LSP is a diagnostic tool intended as the basis for comprehensive style assessment with students in the sixth to twelfth grades. It was developed by the National Association of Secondary School Principals research department in conjunction with a national task force of learning style experts. The Profile was developed in four phases with initial work undertaken at the [[Organization:University of Vermont|University of Vermont]] (cognitive elements), [[Organization:Ohio State University|Ohio State University]] (affective elements), and St. John's University (physiological/environmental elements). Rigid validation and normative studies were conducted using factor analytic methods to ensure strong construct validity and subscale independence.

The LSP contains 23 scales representing four higher order factors: cognitive styles, perceptual responses, study preferences and instructional preferences (the affective and physiological elements). The LSP scales are: analytic skill, spatial skill, discrimination skill, categorizing skill, sequential processing skill, simultaneous processing skill, [[Memory|memory]] skill, perceptual response: visual, perceptual response: auditory, perceptual response: emotive, persistence orientation, verbal risk orientation, verbal-spatial preference, manipulative preference, study time preference: early morning, study time preference: late morning, study time preference: afternoon, study time preference: evening, grouping preference, posture preference, mobility preference, sound preference, lighting preference, temperature preference.<ref name="KeefeMonk1988"/>

===Other methods===
Other methods (usually questionnaires) used to identify learning styles include Neil Fleming's VARK Questionnaire<ref name="Leite"/> and Jackson's Learning Styles Profiler.<ref name="Coffield"/>{{rp|56–59}} Many other tests have gathered popularity and various levels of credibility among students and teachers.

==In the classroom==
For a teacher to use the learning styles model, the teacher has to be able to correctly match each student to a learning style.  This is a generally unsuccessful exercise due to inappropriate tools.  For an assessment tool to be useful, it needs to be a [[Test validity|valid test]], which is to say that it actually has to put all of the "style A" students in the "A" group, all of the "style B" students in the "B" group, and so forth.  Research indicates that very few, if any, of the [[Psychometrics|psychometric]] tests promoted in conjunction with the learning styles idea have the necessary validity to be useful in practice.  Some models, such as Anthony Gregorc's Gregorc Style Delineator, are "theoretically and psychometrically flawed" and "not suitable for the assessment of individuals".<ref name="Coffield" />{{rp|20}}

Furthermore, knowing a student's learning style does not seem to have any practical value for the student.  In 2019, the American Association of Anatomists published a study that investigated whether learning styles had any effect on the final outcomes of an anatomy course. The study found that even when being told they had a specific learning style, the students did not change their study habits, and those students that did use their theoretically dominant learning style had no greater success in the course; specific study strategies, unrelated to learning style, were positively correlated with final course grade.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Husmann|first1=Polly R.|last2=O'Loughlin|first2=Valerie Dean|date=January 2019|title=Another nail in the coffin for learning styles? Disparities among undergraduate anatomy students' study strategies, class performance, and reported VARK learning styles|journal=Anatomical Sciences Education|volume=12|issue=1|pages=6–19|doi=10.1002/ase.1777|pmid=29533532|s2cid=3885672}}</ref>

=== Dunn and Dunn ===
Various researchers have attempted to hypothesize ways in which learning style theory can be used in the classroom. Two such scholars are Rita Dunn and Kenneth Dunn, who build upon a learning modalities approach.<ref name="Coffield"/>{{rp|20–35}}<ref name="Dunn1978">{{cite book |last1=Dunn |first1=Rita Stafford |last2=Dunn |first2=Kenneth J. |date=1978 |title=Teaching students through their individual learning styles: a practical approach |location=Reston, VA |publisher=Reston Pub. Co. |isbn=0879098082 |oclc=3844703}}</ref>

Although learning styles will inevitably differ among students in the classroom, Dunn and Dunn say that teachers should try to make changes in their classroom that will be beneficial to every learning style. Some of these changes include room redesign, the development of small-group techniques, and the development of "contract activity packages".<ref name="Dunn1978"/> Redesigning the classroom involves locating dividers that can be used to arrange the room creatively (such as having different learning stations and instructional areas), clearing the floor area, and incorporating students' thoughts and ideas into the design of the classroom.<ref name="Dunn1978"/>

Dunn and Dunn's "contract activity packages" are educational plans that use: a clear statement of the learning need; multisensory resources (auditory, visual, tactile, kinesthetic); activities through which the newly mastered information can be used creatively; the sharing of creative projects within small groups; at least three small-group techniques; a pre-test, a self-test, and a post-test.<ref name="Dunn1978"/>

Dunn and Dunn's learning styles model is widely used in schools in the United States, and 177 articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals referring to this model.<ref name="Coffield" />{{rp|20}} However, the conclusion of a review by Coffield and colleagues was: "Despite a large and evolving research programme, forceful claims made for impact are questionable because of limitations in many of the supporting studies and the lack of independent research on the model."<ref name="Coffield" />{{rp|35}}

=== Sprenger's Differentiation ===
Another scholar who believes that learning styles should have an effect on the classroom is Marilee Sprenger in ''Differentiation through Learning Styles and Memory''.<ref name="Sprenger">{{cite book |last=Sprenger |first=Marilee |date=2008 |orig-year=2003 |title=Differentiation through learning styles and memory |edition=2nd |location=Thousand Oaks, CA |publisher=Corwin Press |isbn=9781412955447 |oclc=192109691 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DaVu2p5uDBkC}}</ref> She bases her work on three premises:
#Teachers can be learners, and learners teachers. We are all both.
#Everyone can learn under the right circumstances.
#Learning is fun! Make it appealing.<ref name="Sprenger"/>{{Page needed|date=August 2015}}

Sprenger details how to teach in visual, auditory, or tactile/kinesthetic ways. Methods for visual learners include ensuring that students can see words written, using pictures, and drawing [[Timeline|timeline]]s for events.<ref name="Sprenger"/>{{Page needed|date=August 2015}} Methods for auditory learners include repeating words aloud, small-group discussion, debates, listening to books on tape, oral reports, and oral interpretation.<ref name="Sprenger"/>{{Page needed|date=August 2015}} Methods for tactile/kinesthetic learners include hands-on activities (experiments, etc.), projects, frequent breaks to allow movement, visual aids, role play, and field trips.<ref name="Sprenger"/>{{Page needed|date=August 2015}} By using a variety of teaching methods from each of these categories, teachers cater to different learning styles at once, and improve learning by challenging students to learn in different ways.

James W. Keefe and John M. Jenkins have incorporated learning style assessment as a basic component in their "personalized instruction" model of schooling.<ref name="KeefeJenkins2008">{{cite book |last1=Keefe |first1=James W. |last2=Jenkins |first2=John M. |date=2008 |orig-year=2000 |title=Personalized instruction: the key to student achievement |edition=2nd |location=Lanham, MD |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield Education |isbn=9781578867554 |oclc=173509416}}</ref> Six basic elements constitute the culture and context of personalized instruction. The cultural components—teacher role, student learning characteristics, and collegial relationships—establish the foundation of personalization and ensure that the school prizes a caring and collaborative environment. The contextual factors—interactivity, flexible scheduling, and authentic assessment—establish the structure of personalization.<ref name="KeefeJenkins2008"/>{{Page needed|date=August 2015}}

According to Keefe and Jenkins, cognitive and learning style analysis have a special role in the process of personalizing instruction. The assessment of student learning style, more than any other element except the teacher role, establishes the foundation for a personalized approach to schooling: for student advisement and placement, for appropriate retraining of student cognitive skills, for adaptive instructional strategy, and for the authentic evaluation of learning.<ref name="KeefeJenkins2008"/>{{Page needed|date=August 2015}} Some learners respond best in instructional environments based on an analysis of their perceptual and environmental style preferences: most individualized and personalized teaching methods reflect this point of view. Other learners, however, need help to function successfully in ''any'' learning environment. If a youngster cannot cope under conventional instruction, enhancing his cognitive skills may make successful achievement possible.<ref name="KeefeJenkins2008"/>{{Page needed|date=August 2015}}

Many of the student learning problems that learning style diagnosis attempts to solve relate directly to elements of the human information processing system. Processes such as attention, perception and memory, and operations such as integration and retrieval of information are internal to the system. Any hope for improving student learning necessarily involves an understanding and application of information processing theory. Learning style assessment can provide a window to understanding and managing this process.<ref name="KeefeJenkins2008"/>{{Page needed|date=August 2015}}

At least one study evaluating teaching styles and learning styles, however, has found that congruent groups have no significant differences in achievement from incongruent groups.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Spoon |first1=Jerry C. |last2=Schell |first2=John W. |date=Winter 1998 |title=Aligning student learning styles with instructor teaching styles |journal=Journal of Industrial Teacher Education |volume=35 |issue=2 |pages=41–56 |url=http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/v35n2/spoon}}</ref> Furthermore, learning style in this study varied by demography, specifically by age, suggesting a change in learning style as one gets older and acquires more experience. While significant age differences did occur, as well as no experimental manipulation of classroom assignment, the findings do call into question the aim of congruent teaching–learning styles in the classroom.<ref name="Coffield"/>{{rp|122}}

Educational researchers Eileen Carnell and Caroline Lodge concluded that learning styles are not fixed and that they are dependent on circumstance, purpose and conditions.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Carnell |first1=Eileen |last2=Lodge |first2=Caroline |date=2002 |title=Supporting effective learning |location=London; Thousand Oaks, CA |publisher=Paul Chapman Publishing; SAGE Publications |isbn=0761970460 |oclc=48110229 |page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=5AgCUC7M05sC&pg=PA22 22]}}</ref>

==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 |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 [[Philosophy: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>

Many [[Social: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 |date=January–February 2020 |title=Dubious Claims in Psychotherapy for Youth |url=https://skepticalinquirer.org/2020/01/dubious-claims-in-psychotherapy-for-youth/ |magazine=[[Unsolved:Skeptical Inquirer|Skeptical Inquirer]] |location=Amherst |publisher=[[Organization:Center for Inquiry|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 [[Biography:Scott Lilienfeld|Scott Lilienfeld]], [[Biography:Barry Beyerstein|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, a UK think tank, published a report on learning styles prepared by a group chaired by David Hargreaves that included [[Biography:Usha Goswami|Usha Goswami]] from the [[Organization:University of Cambridge|University of Cambridge]] and David Wood from the [[Organization:University of Nottingham|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 |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 |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 [[Organization:Oxford Brookes University|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={{wipe|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 [[Biography:Daniel T. Willingham|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. |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 [[Company:YouTube|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=[[Company:YouTube|YouTube]] |access-date=2020-05-28}}</ref>

===2009 APS critique===
In late 2009, the journal ''Psychological Science in the Public Interest'' of the [[Organization:Association for Psychological Science|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 [[Organization:University of California, San Diego|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. |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 [[Biography:Robert Sternberg|Robert Sternberg]] from [[Organization:Tufts University|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'', 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 |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 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}}</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 |url=https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/edu-edu0000366.pdf}}</ref>

==See also==
*{{annotated link|Philosophy:Barnum effect}}
*{{annotated link|Philosophy:Constructivism (philosophy of education)}}
*{{annotated link|Biology:Memory improvement}}
*{{annotated link|Philosophy:Meta learning}}
*{{annotated link|Philosophy:Metacognition}}
*{{annotated link|Social:Montessori education}}
*{{annotated link|Philosophy:Multisensory learning}}
*{{annotated link|Medicine:Personality test}}
**{{annotated link|Social:DISC assessment}}
*{{annotated link|Philosophy:Speed learning}}
*{{annotated link|Philosophy:Theory of multiple intelligences}}
*{{annotated link|Working memory}}

==References==
{{reflist|30em}}

==Further reading==
{{refbegin|colwidth=30em}}
* {{cite book |last=Coffield |first=Frank |date=2012 |chapter=Learning styles: unreliable, invalid and impractical and yet still widely used |editor1-last=Adey |editor1-first=Philip |editor2-last=Dillon |editor2-first=Justin |title=Bad education: debunking myths in education |location=Maidenhead, UK; New York |publisher=Open University Press |pages=215–230 |isbn=9780335246014 |oclc=813206835 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=uiA5JikjPOgC&pg=PA215}}
* {{cite web |last=Felder |first=Richard M. |title=Are learning styles invalid? (Hint: No!) |url=https://www.engr.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/drive/10S5mLkGElsN8NTsYgOe_f0taEdlSpbJD/2010-LS_Validity(On-Course).pdf|publisher=On-Course Newsletter |date=27 September 2010 |access-date=19 October 2019}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Hawk |first1=Thomas F. |last2=Shah |first2=Amit J. |date=January 2007 |title=Using learning style instruments to enhance student learning |journal=[[Philosophy:Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education|Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education]] |volume=5 |issue=1 |pages=1–19 |doi=10.1111/j.1540-4609.2007.00125.x|doi-access=free }}
* {{cite book |last=Hopper |first=Carolyn H. |date=2016 |orig-year=1998 |chapter=Learning styles |title=Practicing college learning strategies |edition=7th |location=Boston |publisher=Cengage Learning |pages=173–200 |isbn=9781305109599 |oclc=913164185 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1qSaBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA173}}
* {{cite journal |last1=James |first1=Waynne Blue |last2=Gardner |first2=Daniel L. |date=Autumn 1995 |title=Learning styles: implications for distance learning |journal=New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education |volume=1995 |issue=67 |pages=19–31 |doi=10.1002/ace.36719956705}}
* {{cite web |url=https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/evidence-summaries/teaching-learning-toolkit/learning-styles |title=Learning styles |publisher=Education Endowment Foundation |access-date=26 February 2019}}
* {{cite journal |last=Rayner |first=Stephen G. |date=July 2013 |title=Problematising style differences theory and professional learning in educational psychology |journal=The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist |volume=30 |issue=Special Issue 1 |pages=13–35 |doi=10.1017/edp.2013.2|s2cid=145501265 }}
* {{cite journal |last1=Riener |first1=Cedar |last2=Willingham |first2=Daniel T. |date=August 2010 |title=The myth of learning styles |journal=Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning |volume=42 |issue=5 |pages=32–35 |doi=10.1080/00091383.2010.503139 |s2cid=144349329 |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249039450}}
* {{cite journal |last=Ritter |first=Leonora |date=October 2007 |title=Unfulfilled promises: how inventories, instruments and institutions subvert discourses of diversity and promote commonality |journal=Teaching in Higher Education |volume=12 |issue=5–6 |pages=569–579 |doi=10.1080/13562510701595119|s2cid=144100043 }}
* {{cite journal |last=Scott |first=Catherine |date=April 2010 |title=The enduring appeal of 'learning styles' |journal=Australian Journal of Education |volume=54 |issue=1 |pages=5–17 |doi=10.1177/000494411005400102 |s2cid=49432369 |url=http://www.ofs.edu.sg/resources/plc-differentiation/wp-content/uploads/sites/49/2014/10/Enduring-appeal-of-learning-styles.pdf |access-date=2015-08-10 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170417235935/https://www.ofs.edu.sg/resources/plc-differentiation/wp-content/uploads/sites/49/2014/10/Enduring-appeal-of-learning-styles.pdf |archive-date=2017-04-17 |url-status=dead }}
* {{cite web |last=Will |first=Madeleine |date=5 September 2019 |url=https://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/teaching_now/2019/09/teachers_still_believe_learning_styles_other_myths_cognition.html |title=Teachers still believe in learning styles and other myths about cognition |website=blogs.edweek.org |publisher=Education Week |access-date=2019-09-10}}
{{refend}}

==External links==
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhgwIhB58PA The Biggest Myth In Education] by Veritasium

[[Category:Educational psychology]]

{{Sourceattribution|Learning styles|1}}