literature review on learning styles

need help writing research paper

Children are naturally curious—they want to know "how" and "why. In this minilesson, students organize the information they have compiled through the research process by using sentence strips. Students first walk through the process using information on Beluga whales as a model. Students match facts written on sentence strips to one of four categories: appearance, behavior, habitat, and food. Sentence strips are color-coded to match each category. The sequence of notes sentence strips under each category are case studies page in an indented outline form, and regrouped so that similar facts are placed together.

Literature review on learning styles professional reflective essay ghostwriter for hire for masters

Literature review on learning styles

Remarkable phrase seasoned executive assistant resume excellent

Skip to search form Skip to main content You are currently offline.

Thesis 1 4 Cheap case study writer sites ca
Literature review on learning styles Why, then, is the recent research literature so overwhelmingly misleading? Yazici HJ. These results indicate that visual learners were significantly better at both listening and reading comprehension, as compared to auditory learners. Teachers commonly categorize students as visual or auditory learners. Following this methodology, students were divided into groups based on their learning styles.
Essay speech about completion of program 102
Literature review on learning styles 205
American politics thesis topics 354
New veterinarian resume sample Rundle, S. As such, and counter to current educational beliefs and practices, teachers may actually be doing a disservice to students by using resources to determine their learning style and then tailoring the curriculum to match that learning style. Learning can be defined as permanent changes in behavior induced by life [ 1 ]. Nelson et al. Colombo, M. Published : 04 December
Bbb essay contest Sample research proposal on change management

Remarkable, valuable essay world bank 2011 speaking


Save to Library Save. Create Alert Alert. Launch Research Feed Feed. Share This Paper. Citation Type. Has PDF. Publication Type. More Filters. Research Feed. View 2 excerpts, cites background. Identifying learning preferences among Italian undergraduate students studying the sociology of religion: drawing on psychological type preferences.

View 1 excerpt, cites background. Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles. View 1 excerpt, references background. Support for the learning styles hypothesis would show that the instructional method that is best for individuals with one learning style is not the most effective method for individuals with a different learning style.

Figure 1. The relationship between learning style and comprehension was evaluated by a series of correlation analyses on the students with both comprehension and LSCY scores. The comprehension scores met the assumptions for a correlation analysis. To evaluate whether students with stronger visual preferences had better reading comprehension, a Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated. To evaluate whether students with stronger auditory preferences had better listening comprehension, a Pearson correlation was calculated.

To assess this, a Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated for the relationship between the difference between reading comprehension and auditory comprehension whereby positive scores indicate better reading comprehension , and the difference between the visual learning style preference and auditory learning style preference whereby positive scores indicate visual learning style preference.

Pashler et al. Following this methodology, students were divided into groups based on their learning styles. There was a significant main effect of learning styles auditory vs. These results indicate that visual learners were significantly better at both listening and reading comprehension, as compared to auditory learners.

According to Pashler et al. Figure 2B shows an example taken from Pashler et al. Figure 2C shows the data from the current study. As shown in Figure 2C , contrary to the crossover pattern that would be expected to support the meshing hypothesis, the auditory and visual learning style groups both scored higher on listening comprehension than on reading comprehension making it unacceptable evidence.

Figure 2. Graph A displays the pattern of evidence required to support the meshing hypothesis while Graph B displays one of several patterns of evidence that would constitute unacceptable evidence, as adapted from Pashler et al. Graph C displays the results from the current study, which show that there is no crossover effect. Bars represent standard errors. This study was conducted using the entire population of 5th grade students present in one public middle school in rural Pennsylvania. Because all of the students attended the same school, they shared the same educational environment.

Although the statewide-standardized reading assessment of the students in the study closely mirrors the results of the state Regardless of the mode of instruction, only text-based questions were used to test comprehension. By holding the format of the assessment constant, only one variable instruction was varied within the study. Text was chosen over a listening format because this is consistent with most assessments in the K environment.

However, it could be argued that using the same text-based format for the assessment favored those students who had a stronger visual learning style and, thus, masked evidence supporting the learning styles hypothesis. Indeed, visual learners performed significantly better than auditory learners on both the listening and reading comprehension tests.

However, it should also be recalled that both learning style groups performed better on the listening comprehension test than the reading comprehension test, even though both were assessed with text-based questions. Irrespective of this potential limitation, it should be kept in mind that the critical test of the learning styles hypothesis rests in finding a significant correlation between learning style and learning achievement based on instruction.

This was not found. Future studies may want to investigate the effect of the assessment format. Additionally, the extent to which the results of this study can be generalized to other learning styles, forms of instruction, durations of instruction, and other types of material cannot be established. It makes sense that visual learners would perform better when instruction is presented visually rather than auditorily.

Likewise, it makes sense that auditory learners would perform better when instruction is presented in an auditory format rather than visually. This hypothesis had never been tested with K students, making this study with 5th graders the first of its kind. The results of this study add to the mounting evidence that does not support the widespread use of learning styles in the classroom. For the ones who do, receiving instruction in their preferred style did not equate with better learning.

Contrary to the expectations predicted by the learning styles hypothesis, we found 1 no significant positive relationship between auditory learning style and listening comprehension, 2 no significant positive relationship between visual learning style and reading comprehension, and 3 no differential effect of learning style on performance on a listening as compared to a reading comprehension test. Teachers and schools should not devote time and resources to learning styles-based instruction.

Not only were we unable to support the learning styles hypothesis, we replicated a result with important implications for education. A main effect found that 5th graders with a preferred visual learning style performed significantly better than those with an auditory learning style on both listening and reading comprehension measures. This is similar to the results reported in a previous study with adults Rogowsky et al.

That is, both 5th graders and adults with a visual learning style had superior comprehension, regardless of instruction, while those with an auditory learning style scored significantly below their peers on both comprehension measures, regardless of instruction. This would suggest that to achieve superior comprehension, which is vital for classroom learning, all students need as much opportunity as possible to build strong reading skills. Thus, contrary to the learning style hypothesis, it may be particularly important to focus on strengthening reading skills in all students, especially for auditory learners.

That is, auditory learners may actually benefit more from additional instruction in their non-preferred modality. Learning styles-based instruction was based on a theory that gained acceptance despite evidence. With the growing focus on the science of learning, current educational psychology journals and textbooks are making strides in drawing attention to the lack of evidence supporting learning styles-based instruction Woolfolk, Unfortunately, many education textbooks continue to advocate for learning styles-based instruction and for teachers to use learning styles inventories and tests before planning instruction Lynch, The datasets used in this study are available upon request to the corresponding author.

BR, the Principal Investigator, conducted literature review, wrote IRB, led meetings with school district administration and teachers where the research was conducted, oversaw onsite data collection over multiple visits, and worked closely with BC to analyze data, interpret and write-up the results for publication. BC led analysis of the data and writing up results for publication.

PT provided expertise and ongoing consultation of study design, methodology, and analysis and reviewed and edited the final paper. The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Arbuthnott, K. Effective teaching: sensory learning styles versus general memory processes. Innovative Teach. Aslaksen, K. The modality-specific learning style hypothesis: a mini review. Constantinidou, F. Stimulus modality and verbal learning in normal aging. Brain Lang. Cuevas, J. Is learning styles-based instruction effective? A comprehensive analysis of recent research on learning styles. Theory Res. Dekker, S. Neuromyths in education: prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers.

Dunn, R. Learning style the clue to you LSCY : research and implementation manual. Google Scholar. Hansen, L. Honey, P. The manual of learning styles. Maidenhead: Peter Honey. Howard-Jones, P. Neuroscience and education: myths and messages. Kassaian, Z. Kirschner, P. Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Knoll, A. Learning style, judgements of learning, and learning of verbal and visual information.

Kolb, D. The Kolb learning style inventory — Version 3. London: Hay Resources Direct. Kolloffel, B. Exploring the relation between visualizer-verbalizer cognitive style and performance with visual or verbal learning material. Kratzig, G. Perceptual learning style and learning proficiency: a test of the hypothesis.

Learning Styles Learning styles: online learning style assessments and community. Dunn and Dunn learning styles online. Lynch, M. The call to teach: An introduction to teaching. Massachusetts: Pearson Education, Inc. MacDonald, K. Dispelling the myth: training in education or neuroscience decreases but does not eliminate beliefs in neuromyths.

MacGinitie, W. Gates-MacGinitie reading test. Illinois: Riverside Publishing Company. Mahdjoubi, L. Martin, S. Teachers using learning styles: torn between research and accountability?