学习风格:概念和证据。

Harold Pashler, Mark McDaniel, Doug Rohrer, Robert Bjork
{"title":"学习风格:概念和证据。","authors":"Harold Pashler,&nbsp;Mark McDaniel,&nbsp;Doug Rohrer,&nbsp;Robert Bjork","doi":"10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The term \"learning styles\" refers to the concept that individuals differ in regard to what mode of instruction or study is most effective for them. Proponents of learning-style assessment contend that optimal instruction requires diagnosing individuals' learning style and tailoring instruction accordingly. Assessments of learning style typically ask people to evaluate what sort of information presentation they prefer (e.g., words versus pictures versus speech) and/or what kind of mental activity they find most engaging or congenial (e.g., analysis versus listening), although assessment instruments are extremely diverse. The most common-but not the only-hypothesis about the instructional relevance of learning styles is the meshing hypothesis, according to which instruction is best provided in a format that matches the preferences of the learner (e.g., for a \"visual learner,\" emphasizing visual presentation of information). The learning-styles view has acquired great influence within the education field, and is frequently encountered at levels ranging from kindergarten to graduate school. There is a thriving industry devoted to publishing learning-styles tests and guidebooks for teachers, and many organizations offer professional development workshops for teachers and educators built around the concept of learning styles. The authors of the present review were charged with determining whether these practices are supported by scientific evidence. We concluded that any credible validation of learning-styles-based instruction requires robust documentation of a very particular type of experimental finding with several necessary criteria. First, students must be divided into groups on the basis of their learning styles, and then students from each group must be randomly assigned to receive one of multiple instructional methods. Next, students must then sit for a final test that is the same for all students. Finally, in order to demonstrate that optimal learning requires that students receive instruction tailored to their putative learning style, the experiment must reveal a specific type of interaction between learning style and instructional method: Students with one learning style achieve the best educational outcome when given an instructional method that differs from the instructional method producing the best outcome for students with a different learning style. In other words, the instructional method that proves most effective for students with one learning style is not the most effective method for students with a different learning style. Our review of the literature disclosed ample evidence that children and adults will, if asked, express preferences about how they prefer information to be presented to them. There is also plentiful evidence arguing that people differ in the degree to which they have some fairly specific aptitudes for different kinds of thinking and for processing different types of information. However, we found virtually no evidence for the interaction pattern mentioned above, which was judged to be a precondition for validating the educational applications of learning styles. Although the literature on learning styles is enormous, very few studies have even used an experimental methodology capable of testing the validity of learning styles applied to education. Moreover, of those that did use an appropriate method, several found results that flatly contradict the popular meshing hypothesis. We conclude therefore, that 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 a strong evidence base, of which there are an increasing number. However, given the lack of methodologically sound studies of learning styles, it would be an error to conclude that all possible versions of learning styles have been tested and found wanting; many have simply not been tested at all. Further research on the use of learning-styles assessment in instruction may in some cases be warranted, but such research needs to be performed appropriately. </p>","PeriodicalId":37882,"journal":{"name":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x","citationCount":"1234","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence.\",\"authors\":\"Harold Pashler,&nbsp;Mark McDaniel,&nbsp;Doug Rohrer,&nbsp;Robert Bjork\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The term \\\"learning styles\\\" refers to the concept that individuals differ in regard to what mode of instruction or study is most effective for them. Proponents of learning-style assessment contend that optimal instruction requires diagnosing individuals' learning style and tailoring instruction accordingly. Assessments of learning style typically ask people to evaluate what sort of information presentation they prefer (e.g., words versus pictures versus speech) and/or what kind of mental activity they find most engaging or congenial (e.g., analysis versus listening), although assessment instruments are extremely diverse. The most common-but not the only-hypothesis about the instructional relevance of learning styles is the meshing hypothesis, according to which instruction is best provided in a format that matches the preferences of the learner (e.g., for a \\\"visual learner,\\\" emphasizing visual presentation of information). The learning-styles view has acquired great influence within the education field, and is frequently encountered at levels ranging from kindergarten to graduate school. There is a thriving industry devoted to publishing learning-styles tests and guidebooks for teachers, and many organizations offer professional development workshops for teachers and educators built around the concept of learning styles. The authors of the present review were charged with determining whether these practices are supported by scientific evidence. We concluded that any credible validation of learning-styles-based instruction requires robust documentation of a very particular type of experimental finding with several necessary criteria. First, students must be divided into groups on the basis of their learning styles, and then students from each group must be randomly assigned to receive one of multiple instructional methods. Next, students must then sit for a final test that is the same for all students. Finally, in order to demonstrate that optimal learning requires that students receive instruction tailored to their putative learning style, the experiment must reveal a specific type of interaction between learning style and instructional method: Students with one learning style achieve the best educational outcome when given an instructional method that differs from the instructional method producing the best outcome for students with a different learning style. In other words, the instructional method that proves most effective for students with one learning style is not the most effective method for students with a different learning style. Our review of the literature disclosed ample evidence that children and adults will, if asked, express preferences about how they prefer information to be presented to them. There is also plentiful evidence arguing that people differ in the degree to which they have some fairly specific aptitudes for different kinds of thinking and for processing different types of information. However, we found virtually no evidence for the interaction pattern mentioned above, which was judged to be a precondition for validating the educational applications of learning styles. Although the literature on learning styles is enormous, very few studies have even used an experimental methodology capable of testing the validity of learning styles applied to education. Moreover, of those that did use an appropriate method, several found results that flatly contradict the popular meshing hypothesis. We conclude therefore, that 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 a strong evidence base, of which there are an increasing number. However, given the lack of methodologically sound studies of learning styles, it would be an error to conclude that all possible versions of learning styles have been tested and found wanting; many have simply not been tested at all. Further research on the use of learning-styles assessment in instruction may in some cases be warranted, but such research needs to be performed appropriately. </p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37882,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x\",\"citationCount\":\"1234\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Psychology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1234

摘要

“学习风格”一词指的是个体在哪种教学或学习模式对他们最有效方面的差异。学习风格评估的支持者认为,最佳教学需要诊断个人的学习风格,并相应地调整教学。学习风格的评估通常要求人们评估他们更喜欢哪种类型的信息呈现(例如,文字、图片和语音)和/或他们觉得哪种心理活动最吸引人或最相投(例如,分析和倾听),尽管评估工具非常多样化。关于学习风格的教学相关性,最常见但不是唯一的假设是网格假设,根据该假设,教学最好以符合学习者偏好的格式提供(例如,对于“视觉学习者”,强调信息的视觉呈现)。学习风格观在教育领域产生了很大的影响,从幼儿园到研究生院的各个层次都经常遇到这种观点。有一个蓬勃发展的行业致力于为教师出版学习风格测试和指南,许多组织为教师和教育工作者提供围绕学习风格概念的专业发展研讨会。本综述的作者负责确定这些做法是否有科学证据支持。我们得出的结论是,任何基于学习风格的教学的可信验证都需要一个非常特定类型的实验发现和几个必要标准的可靠文档。首先,必须根据学生的学习风格将他们分成小组,然后从每个小组中随机分配学生接受多种教学方法中的一种。接下来,学生们必须参加对所有学生都一样的期末考试。最后,为了证明最佳学习要求学生接受适合他们假定的学习风格的指导,实验必须揭示学习风格和教学方法之间特定类型的相互作用:当给予一种学习风格的学生不同于为不同学习风格的学生产生最佳结果的教学方法时,具有一种学习风格的学生获得最佳教育结果。换句话说,对一种学习风格的学生最有效的教学方法,对另一种学习风格的学生不一定是最有效的。我们对文献的回顾揭示了充分的证据,表明儿童和成人在被问及他们对信息呈现方式的偏好时,都会表达自己的偏好。也有大量的证据表明,人们在不同的思维方式和处理不同类型的信息时,具有不同程度的相当特定的能力。然而,我们几乎没有发现上述互动模式的证据,这被认为是验证学习风格教育应用的先决条件。尽管关于学习风格的文献非常多,但很少有研究使用实验方法来测试学习风格在教育中的有效性。此外,在那些使用适当方法的研究中,有几个发现的结果与流行的网格假设完全矛盾。因此,我们得出结论,目前没有足够的证据来证明将学习风格评估纳入一般教育实践。因此,有限的教育资源最好用于采用其他有强有力证据基础的教育做法,这种做法的数量正在增加。然而,鉴于缺乏对学习风格的方法学上可靠的研究,认为所有可能的学习风格都经过了测试并发现不足,这将是一个错误的结论;许多根本就没有经过测试。在某些情况下,可能需要进一步研究在教学中使用学习风格评估,但这种研究需要适当地进行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence.

The term "learning styles" refers to the concept that individuals differ in regard to what mode of instruction or study is most effective for them. Proponents of learning-style assessment contend that optimal instruction requires diagnosing individuals' learning style and tailoring instruction accordingly. Assessments of learning style typically ask people to evaluate what sort of information presentation they prefer (e.g., words versus pictures versus speech) and/or what kind of mental activity they find most engaging or congenial (e.g., analysis versus listening), although assessment instruments are extremely diverse. The most common-but not the only-hypothesis about the instructional relevance of learning styles is the meshing hypothesis, according to which instruction is best provided in a format that matches the preferences of the learner (e.g., for a "visual learner," emphasizing visual presentation of information). The learning-styles view has acquired great influence within the education field, and is frequently encountered at levels ranging from kindergarten to graduate school. There is a thriving industry devoted to publishing learning-styles tests and guidebooks for teachers, and many organizations offer professional development workshops for teachers and educators built around the concept of learning styles. The authors of the present review were charged with determining whether these practices are supported by scientific evidence. We concluded that any credible validation of learning-styles-based instruction requires robust documentation of a very particular type of experimental finding with several necessary criteria. First, students must be divided into groups on the basis of their learning styles, and then students from each group must be randomly assigned to receive one of multiple instructional methods. Next, students must then sit for a final test that is the same for all students. Finally, in order to demonstrate that optimal learning requires that students receive instruction tailored to their putative learning style, the experiment must reveal a specific type of interaction between learning style and instructional method: Students with one learning style achieve the best educational outcome when given an instructional method that differs from the instructional method producing the best outcome for students with a different learning style. In other words, the instructional method that proves most effective for students with one learning style is not the most effective method for students with a different learning style. Our review of the literature disclosed ample evidence that children and adults will, if asked, express preferences about how they prefer information to be presented to them. There is also plentiful evidence arguing that people differ in the degree to which they have some fairly specific aptitudes for different kinds of thinking and for processing different types of information. However, we found virtually no evidence for the interaction pattern mentioned above, which was judged to be a precondition for validating the educational applications of learning styles. Although the literature on learning styles is enormous, very few studies have even used an experimental methodology capable of testing the validity of learning styles applied to education. Moreover, of those that did use an appropriate method, several found results that flatly contradict the popular meshing hypothesis. We conclude therefore, that 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 a strong evidence base, of which there are an increasing number. However, given the lack of methodologically sound studies of learning styles, it would be an error to conclude that all possible versions of learning styles have been tested and found wanting; many have simply not been tested at all. Further research on the use of learning-styles assessment in instruction may in some cases be warranted, but such research needs to be performed appropriately.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
68.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Psychological Science in the Public Interest (PSPI) is a unique journal featuring comprehensive and compelling reviews of issues that are of direct relevance to the general public. These reviews are written by blue ribbon teams of specialists representing a range of viewpoints, and are intended to assess the current state-of-the-science with regard to the topic. Among other things, PSPI reports have challenged the validity of the Rorschach and other projective tests; have explored how to keep the aging brain sharp; and have documented problems with the current state of clinical psychology. PSPI reports are regularly featured in Scientific American Mind and are typically covered in a variety of other major media outlets.
期刊最新文献
Corrigendum to "The Heterogeneous Nature of Substance Use and Substance Use Disorders: Implications for Characterizing Substance-Related Stigma". Comment on Porat et al. (2024): "Preventing Sexual Violence: A Behavioral Problem Without a Behaviorally Informed Solution". Preventing Sexual Violence: A Behavioral Problem Without a Behaviorally Informed Solution. Addressing Challenges and Opportunities in Juvenile Justice: Meeting the Needs of Incarcerated Adolescent Populations. Adolescent Contact, Lasting Impact? Lessons Learned From Two Longitudinal Studies Spanning 20 Years of Developmental Science Research With Justice-System-Involved Youths.
×
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