Byline: Joanne K. Olson

The idea that people may have different abilities to learn, depending on the modality of instruction, has been around for over 100 years (Willingham 2005). When applied to educational practice, the essence of this viewpoint is that because everyone learns differently, we should teach students in multiple ways so that at least one of these modalities will match that of our learners, increasing the likelihood of learning. Better yet, we should preassess our students to determine their learning style and tailor lesson plans toward their preferred style. What evidence exists for these claims? Do "kinesthetic learners" really need kinesthetic activities in order to learn?

Does teaching to individual learning styles increase learning?

The idea that children learn best when instruction is tailored to their learning style is intuitively appealing and may seem to be supported by classroom experience. Some students appear to thrive when asked to express ideas through a role-play activity or through music. Others don't seem to understand an explanation until the teacher draws a picture or uses manipulatives to illustrate a concept.

However, research has shown that when students received instruction specifically tailored to their preferred learning style, they performed poorly on tests of the material (Salomon 1984). In fact, a comparison group who received instruction in formats different than their preferred style scored significantly better on the same tests!

Salomon found that the level of effort learners invested in the task was the critical factor that affected students' performance. When students received instruction in their preferred format, they exhibited overconfidence in their ability to learn the information, and thus, invested less effort in learning the content. This lower level of effort resulted in lower levels of learning. In contrast, when learners were confronted with instruction in a format different than that which they preferred, they perceived the task to be more difficult, exhibited greater effort to learn, and learned more as a result.

Other studies have also found no improvements when students are taught in their preferred style (Mayer and Massa 2003; Kavale and Forness 1987; Kampwirth and Bates 1980). In summary, "Researchers in this area have found no valid evidence that tailoring instruction to different learning styles results in any learning benefits" (Feldon 2005, p. 39).

How do teachers account for students' learning successes and difficulties?

When we understand similarities in how people learn, the better we understand why students may or may not learn science concepts. Consider these ideas:

Concrete representations should precede abstractions. In the 1700s, Rousseau noted that our ability to understand abstractions gradually develops over time, a finding supported empirically by Piaget in the mid-twentieth century. A verbal explanation may be difficult for a child to understand, but when a more concrete representation (such as a picture or a real object) is used along with the explanation, the child has a greater likelihood of understanding.

For example, effective mathematics instruction often begins with concrete representations of the concept by using manipulatives. After students understand the concept using manipulatives, a symbolic representation using numerals is introduced. Similarly, in language arts, effective teachers begin a text with prereading strategies that help students use pictures and other visual cues prior to reading text.

In science, the same principle of beginning with concrete representations applies. The learning cycle and other inquiry-based instructional models emphasize that students need real experiences to precede more abstract development of concepts. Rather than beginning with text and doing the activity last, inquiry-based science instruction begins with experience, then develops concepts (using drawings, graphs, class discussion, and teacher-led instruction), and finally applies those concepts back to real experience. …