GUEST POST: Learning Styles and Differentiated Instruction
By Kevin Butler
Kevin Butler is a senior at Illinois Wesleyan University in Bloomington, Illinois. He is studying Spanish and Education and plans to be a Spanish teacher at the secondary level after graduating.
Most people have heard of “learning styles” -- the idea that people learn better when presented with information in a particular modality, such as visual, auditory, or kinesthetic. Visual learners learn best by seeing representations of information, such as by looking at pictures and graphs. Auditory learners learn best by listening, such as by hearing descriptions of the information to be learned. Kinesthetic learners learn best by engaging in hands-on activities.
In 2017, cognitive psychologist Paul Kirschner published an article entitled “Stop propagating the learning styles myth” (1). Considering that 93% of the general population of adults in the United States believes that learning styles are real (2), it may be surprising to hear a psychologist calling learning styles a “myth.” However, Paul Kirschner is not alone.
It is well-established that there is no evidence that learning styles exist or that adapting instruction for students’ supposed learning styles helps them learn (3). Studies from as early as the 1970’s (4) and 1980’s (5) looking at teaching methods tuned to students’ preferred modalities arrived at that conclusion, and many more recent studies (6) and literature reviews (7) have confirmed repeatedly that evidence to support learning styles is non-existent. This applies not only to the learning style categories of “visual, auditory, and kinesthetic” -- dozens of learning-style models have been proposed, yet none has shown evidence for its validity.
As previously mentioned, 93% of the general population of adults in the United States believes in learning styles, but how do teachers fare? Of teachers in the United States, 76% believe in learning styles (2), as do 93% of teachers in the United Kingdom (8). This widespread belief in learning styles can have very negative consequences. Some researchers (2) argue that if teachers focus on instructional approaches that are not supported by evidence -- such as catering to learning styles -- it can divert them from searching for teaching strategies that are effective.
Ignoring valid approaches and instead trying to differentiate instruction for learning styles is simply a waste of time. Furthermore, attempting to differentiate instruction based on students’ “learning styles” can lead to a “dumbing down” of instruction. Educator Mike Schmoker mentions a classroom he observed in which this issue arose: “In English, ‘creative’ students made things or drew pictures; ‘analytical’ students got to read and write” (9).
Additionally worrisome is that, if labelled with a learning style, students may “pigeonhole” themselves. Professor Robert Bjork argues that students who think that they have a learning style may see themselves as unable to learn when given information in a format outside of their “style” (10). This is a self-fulfilling prophecy -- students do not believe that they can learn particular content, and the result is that they refuse to learn that content. Thus, they end up limiting their own opportunities.
Image from Pixabay
All of this being said, it is still unquestionable that all students are different. If teaching to “learning styles” is ineffective, then how can teachers ensure that all students succeed? There are (at least) two ideas that can be taken into account when adapting instruction for diverse learners. First, one’s background knowledge determines what she can learn. Second, there are certain characteristics common among low-performing students (issues with working memory and a lack of knowledge of effective study skills), and there are approaches to teaching that accommodate such characteristics.
People learn new things in the context of what they already know (11). Therefore, assessing students’ background knowledge is key in differentiating instruction. Assessing students’ knowledge at the beginning of the school year (such as with a pre-test) is likely beneficial. Additionally, education researcher Pedro de Bruyckere gives a specific recommendation in his book The Ingredients for Great Teaching:
After you have decided what prior knowledge your pupils need, choose five core words or insights that they should already know if they possess this knowledge. The pupils who can describe four or five of the core concepts with relative ease can...be allowed to explore the subject of the lesson by themselves. For pupils who know three core words...you should provide a short text that refreshes their memory of the themes involves (this text is sometimes referred to as an advanced organizer). The pupils who know one or two (or even none) of the words need to be taken aside and given direct instruction by the teacher. (12)
Of course, this recommendation is simply that -- a recommendation. However, it emphasizes that being aware of students’ prior knowledge is vital. Having been a student teacher last year, I will give the following example of a lesson that was particularly successful. As a Spanish teacher, I was covering a particular grammar rule. I began with direct instruction, involving extensive questioning to gauge students’ level of understanding -- a technique well-supported by research (13). Towards the end of the class, students had time to work on an assignment with supervision.
This assignment had two parts -- the first part was a drill/practice section covering the grammar rule; the second section required students to write freely, but with specifications that required them to implement the grammar rule in their writing. Accordingly, students who were struggling with the rule had an opportunity to practice using it in a highly-guided way, whereas students who “got” it could quickly go through the initial practice section and get to more broad application of the knowledge.
Image from Pixabay
In the book Effective Teaching Strategies that Accommodate Diverse Learners, it is mentioned that many low-performing students suffer deficits in working memory and have not learned effective studying strategies (14). To help students who may have issues with working memory, an effective approach is teaching “conspicuous strategies.” This involves breaking down the information to be learned into small steps, then guiding students through those steps one at a time. For teaching study skills, the aforementioned book notes “rehearsal,” which has also been described as “retrieval.” Retrieval consists of working actively to recall learned information. This study skill is quite effective for all students (15); however, it appears to be especially beneficial for lower-performing students (16). Retrieval practice consists of putting away one’s class notes/materials and trying to recall as much of the learned material as possible. This may be in the form of writing out descriptions of content, sketching diagrams, or writing about connections between topics. This can also be done with practice tests. The idea is to try to recall information without looking at the information. As Bjork & Bjork explain, “any time that you, as a learner, look up an answer or have somebody tell or show you something that you could...generate instead, you rob yourself of a powerful learning opportunity” (15).
In sum, to design instruction effective for all learners, it is advisable to keep in mind that students’ prior knowledge determines what they can learn, and low-performing students often have issues with working memory and do not use effective study strategies. In order to help all students, it is important to teach effective study skills and to break material down into small steps. In order to differentiate instruction for different ability levels, one should assess students’ background knowledge when introducing new material and include direct instruction in one’s lessons for students who lack key background knowledge.
References:
(1) Kirschner, P. (2017). Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Computers and Education, 106, 166-171.
(2) Macdonald, K., Germine, L., Anderson, A., Christodoulou, J., and McGrath, L. (2017). Dispelling the myth: Training in education or neuroscience decreases but does not eliminate beliefs in neuromyths. Frontiers in Psychology, 10.
(3) Willingham, D., Hughes, E., and Dobolyi, D. (2015). The scientific status of learning style theories. Teaching of Psychology, 42(3), 266-271.
(4) Arter, J., and Jenkins, J. (1979). Differential diagnosis-prescriptive teaching: A critical appraisal. Review of Educational Research, 49(4), 517-555.
(5) Kavale, K., and Forness, S. (1987). Substance over style: Assessing the efficacy of modality testing and teaching. Exceptional Children, 54(3), 228-239.
(6) Husmann, P., and O’Loughlin, V. (2018). Another nail in the coffin for learning styles? Disparities among undergraduate anatomy students’ study strategies, class performance, and reported VARK learning styles. Anatomical Sciences Education, 12(1), 6-19.
(7) Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., and Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105-119.
(8) Dekker, S., Lee, N., Howard-Jones, P., and Jolles, J. (2012). Neuromyths in education: Prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 3.
(9) Schmoker, M. (2010, September 27). When pedagogic fads trump priorities. Education Week.
(10) Bjork, R. [Lastinglearning.com] (2015, 28 October). The myth of individual learning styles, Dr. Robert Bjork [video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvM4mnEIxuQ
(11) Willingham, D. (2009). Why don’t students like school? A cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
(12) de Bruyckere, P. (2018). The ingredients for great teaching. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
(13) Rosenshine, B., and Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. New York, NY: MacMillan.
(14) Coyne, M., Kame’enui, E., and Carnine, D. (2011). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
(15) Bjork, E., and Bjork, R. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In M.A. Gernsbacher (ed.), Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society. New York: Worth Publishers.
(16) Agarwal, P., Finley, J., Rose, N., and Roediger, H. (2017). Benefits from retrieval practice are greater for students with lower working memory capacity. Memory, 25(6), 764-771.
