Matching learning style to instructional format penalizes learning

IF 4.1 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Computers and Education Open Pub Date : 2023-05-27 DOI:10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100143
Keith B. Lyle , Andrea S. Young , Robin J. Heyden , Mark A. McDaniel
{"title":"Matching learning style to instructional format penalizes learning","authors":"Keith B. Lyle ,&nbsp;Andrea S. Young ,&nbsp;Robin J. Heyden ,&nbsp;Mark A. McDaniel","doi":"10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Experiments have failed to support the matching hypothesis that students’ learning style preferences should be matched to instructional modality to optimize learning. These studies have generally been restricted to considering sensory modality learning style dimensions. We extend this extant work by examining the matching hypothesis with regard to another learning styles model, one that distinguishes between active/reflective learning preferences (Felder &amp; Silverman, 1988). Participants preferring each learning style were assigned to one of two versions of a digital-based Biology lesson (textbook chapter). The interactive version contained interactive exercises consisting of text and visuals. In the non-interactive version, the interactivity was removed, and participants watched while the identical exercises were completed by the computer. We assumed that an active learning style would align with the interactive lesson, whereas a reflective learning style would better align with the non-interactive lesson. For two learning tests (definition recall and multiple-choice questions) the nature of the lesson (interactive vs. non-interactive) did not interact with participants’ learning style. For a test that targeted the content for which the interactive exercises were designed, learning performance was better when the lesson format <em>mismatched</em> the preferred learning style. The results importantly enrich the experimental evidence countering the matching hypothesis. The current finding is particularly strong because it does not rely on a null effect. Further, the current findings significantly extend the experimental literature from a focus on the modality-specific matching hypothesis to a broader consideration of learning-styles that includes an activity-based (active/reflective) learning style model.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100322,"journal":{"name":"Computers and Education Open","volume":"5 ","pages":"Article 100143"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers and Education Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666557323000216","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Experiments have failed to support the matching hypothesis that students’ learning style preferences should be matched to instructional modality to optimize learning. These studies have generally been restricted to considering sensory modality learning style dimensions. We extend this extant work by examining the matching hypothesis with regard to another learning styles model, one that distinguishes between active/reflective learning preferences (Felder & Silverman, 1988). Participants preferring each learning style were assigned to one of two versions of a digital-based Biology lesson (textbook chapter). The interactive version contained interactive exercises consisting of text and visuals. In the non-interactive version, the interactivity was removed, and participants watched while the identical exercises were completed by the computer. We assumed that an active learning style would align with the interactive lesson, whereas a reflective learning style would better align with the non-interactive lesson. For two learning tests (definition recall and multiple-choice questions) the nature of the lesson (interactive vs. non-interactive) did not interact with participants’ learning style. For a test that targeted the content for which the interactive exercises were designed, learning performance was better when the lesson format mismatched the preferred learning style. The results importantly enrich the experimental evidence countering the matching hypothesis. The current finding is particularly strong because it does not rely on a null effect. Further, the current findings significantly extend the experimental literature from a focus on the modality-specific matching hypothesis to a broader consideration of learning-styles that includes an activity-based (active/reflective) learning style model.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
将学习风格与教学形式相匹配会惩罚学习
实验未能支持匹配假说,即学生的学习风格偏好应与教学模式相匹配,以优化学习。这些研究通常局限于考虑感觉模态学习风格维度。我们通过检验另一种学习风格模型的匹配假设来扩展这项现存的工作,该模型区分了主动/反思学习偏好(Felder&;Silverman,1988)。喜欢每种学习风格的参与者被分配到基于数字的生物学课程的两个版本中的一个(教科书章节)。交互式版本包含由文本和视觉组成的交互式练习。在非交互式版本中,取消了交互性,参与者在电脑完成相同的练习时观看。我们假设积极的学习风格会与互动课程相一致,而反思性的学习风格则会与非互动课程更好地相一致。对于两项学习测试(定义回忆和多项选择题),课程的性质(互动与非互动)与参与者的学习风格无关。对于针对互动练习设计内容的测试,当课程形式与首选学习风格不匹配时,学习表现更好。这些结果重要地丰富了反驳匹配假说的实验证据。目前的发现特别有力,因为它不依赖于零效应。此外,目前的研究结果显著扩展了实验文献,从对模态特定匹配假设的关注扩展到对学习风格的更广泛考虑,其中包括基于活动的(主动/反思)学习风格模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Does technology-based non-interactive teaching enhance students’ learning in the classroom? Does testing environment matter for virtual school students? What influences teachers’ implementation of ICT in early childhood education? A qualitative exploration based on an ecological-TPACK framework Middle school teachers’ implementation and perceptions of automated writing evaluation University student and instructor experiences with HyFlex learning: A scoping review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1