Purpose

The purpose of this review was (a) to distinguish what has been empirically proven about learning/cognitive styles from what has popular appeal alone, and (b) to discuss implications for the design of effective and efficient learning experiences for all potential learners.

Lack of Empirical Evidence

No single theory unites the literature on learning styles (BECTA, 2005; Coffield, Mosley, Hall, & Ecclestone, 2004a; McLoughlin, 1999; Stahl, 1999). While it is likely that learners differ in many ways, there is question as to whether these style differences are stable across all situations or whether they vary according to task and environment; and how or if addressing these styles has an impact on learning. The issue of matching a learner to a particular instructional strategy has been fraught with a lack of research demonstrating a relationship between instruction design of learning materials or teaching styles and learning outcomes (BECTA, 2005; Evans & Sadler-Smith, 2006; Hattie, 1999; McLoughlin, 1999; Spoon & Schell, 1998). These issues have further been clouded by commercialization efforts that focus on intuitive appeal of models and instruments over psychometric rigor (Coffield et al., 2004b).

Conclusions

The lack of empirical evidence linking learning/cognitive styles to learning outcomes suggests a rethinking of this topic. The impact of prior knowledge of the learner and nature of the subject matter are stronger partners in the decisions relating to what and how to provide instruction. Opponents and proponents of learning/cognitive styles research have suggested that efforts should focus on examining (a) constructs rather than models and (b) the impact of associated strategies on learning outcomes. Research on prior knowledge, cognitive load, motivation, and metacognition offers promising insights into how to prepare learners to achieve desired learning and performance goals and to become lifelong learners.

Menu

Susan Coleman, PhD, CPT