Multimedia in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education

Commentary: Learning-Style Theories Debunked, but Still GuidingEducational Practice

Received for publication, November 16, 2011

Graham R. Parslow‡

From the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, The University of Melbourne,Victoria 3010, Australia

My children taught me that computers run on smokeand when the smoke comes out of the processor chipsthey will not work anymore. Although the fallacy isobvious, the logic is seductive. The long running cre-dence in learning-style theories in education now looksas ephemeral as the phlogiston theory of the middleages [1] or my children’s assertion about computerfunction. My initial alert to the demise of learning theo-ries came from Gary Stix writing in Scientific American[2], where he proclaimed that the notion that each childhas a particular learning style is a myth. ‘‘The notionthat a pupil tends to learn better by favoring a particularform of sensory input—a visual learner as opposed toone who listens better—has not received much valida-tion in actual studies. For this and other myths, publicperceptions appear to have outstripped the science.Uta Frith, a neuroscientist who chaired a British panelthat looked at the promise of neuroeducation, urgesparents and educators to tread cautiously. There ishuge demand by the general public to have informationabout neuroscience for education. As a consequence,there an enormous supply of totally untested, untried,and not very scientific methods’’ [2]. A part of thehistory of creating learning-style theories is by extrapo-lation from the personality theory of the analytical psy-chologist and psychoanalyst Carl Jung. Jung’s ideaswere incorporated into the Myers–Briggs psychologicaltest dating from the 1940s; a test that is still widelyused. The Myers–Briggs test categorizes people intogroups such as introvert and extrovert. Howeverthis test, just like learning styles, is backed by littlesupportive evidence from objective studies [3]. Even sothe idea of classifying people into types has greatappeal.

Proponents of learning-style assessment contend thatoptimal instruction requires tailoring instruction after anassessment of learning style; typically evaluating the

sort of information presentation they prefer (words,pictures, or speech. The learning-styles view has had agreat influence at all levels ranging from kindergarten tograduate school. Pashler et al. [3] conclude that stu-dents can learn equally well using a variety of learningstyles and students do not learn better when theirpreferred learning styles are used. The most commonhypothesis about learning styles is the meshing hypoth-esis [3], which exhorts teachers to mesh learning withthe preferences of the learner (i.e., provide a visuallearner with visual presentations). It is no surprise thatmany commercial enterprises continue to publish learn-ing-styles tests and guidebooks for teachers, and pro-vide professional development workshops. Pashler et al.[3] set out to find evidence for learning styles that metscientific criteria. Students must be divided into groupson the basis of their measured learning styles and thenstudents must be randomly assigned to receive oneinstructional mode. It is to be expected if learning stylesare valid that learning will show an optimum when learn-ing style matches learning mode. It was easy enoughto find that the literature provided ample evidence thatchildren and adults will express preferences about howthey prefer information to be presented to them. How-ever, although the literature on learning styles is enor-mous, very few studies used a randomized experimentalmethodology. Those that did commonly found resultsthat flatly contradicted the popular meshing hypothesis.There is no evidence to justify incorporating learning-styles assessments into general educational practice.‘‘Thus, limited education resources would better bedevoted to adopting other educational practices thathave a strong evidence base, of which there are anincreasing number’’ [3].

Nature famously abhors a vacuum so what hasentered the place of learning styles? Some people ofcourse have simply not given them up and this echoesthe words of Max Planck ‘‘A new scientific truth doesnot triumph by convincing its opponents and makingthem see the light, but rather because its opponentseventually die and a new generation grows up’’ [4]. The

‡To whom correspondence should be addressed. Fax: 61 393477730. E-mail: gparslow@unimelb.edu.au.

DOI 10.1002/bmb.20581 This paper is available on line at http://www.bambed.org72

Q 2011 by The International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology BIOCHEMISTRY AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY EDUCATION

Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 72–73, 2012

next generation will adhere to practices based on theevidence of MRI brain scans and objectively provenpractices, perhaps using music in a synergistic manner[2]. However, for the time being it seems that no theoryof learning has a clear right to dictate practice. Theblended learning we are providing may be as good asit gets.

REFERENCES

[1] Phlogiston theory from 1667. Available at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory (accessed Nov 15, 2011).

[2] G. Stix (2011) How to Build a Better Learner. Scientific AmericanAugust 2011, p 32–37.

[3] H. Pashler, M. McDaniel, D. Rohrer, R. Bjork (2008) Learning StylesConcepts and Evidence. Psychol. Sci. Publ. Interest 9, 105–119.

[4] Collected quotes against excessive scepticism. Available at: www.eskimo.com/�billb/weird/skepquot.html, accessed Nov 15, 2011.

73