27
Cracking Common Learning Myths Michael B. Wolfe Grand Valley State University West MI Community Literacy Summit Sept. 25, 2013

Cracking Common Learning Myths

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Michael Wolfe, PhD, Grand Valley State University

Citation preview

Page 1: Cracking Common Learning Myths

Cracking Common Learning Myths

Michael B. Wolfe

Grand Valley State University

West MI Community Literacy SummitSept. 25, 2013

Page 2: Cracking Common Learning Myths

Outline

1. Do students learn better in their preferred learning style?

2. Does increasing student interest in a lesson result in more learning?

3. After reading, is re-reading an effective learning strategy?

Page 3: Cracking Common Learning Myths

Learning styles hypothesis: Students differ in how they learn (visually, verbally, etc.). Learning can be improved when instruction for a student matches

the student’s preferred style.

Learning Styles Inventories (there are many dozens): Dunn and Dunn learning styles model Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire Learning Styles Inventory VARK Questionnaire (Visual, Aural, Reading/writing,

Kinsethetic)

Learning Styles

Page 4: Cracking Common Learning Myths

Many educators believe the learning styles hypothesis

Learning Styles

Page 5: Cracking Common Learning Myths

Many people believe the learning styles hypothesis

Learning Styles

Scientific journals (Zapalska and Dabb, 2002)“The achievement of college students could be improved by providing

instruction in a manner consistent with each student’s learning style.”

Congressman Justin Amash“Government-mandated curriculums and teaching methods do not

properly account for different learning styles.”

GRPS Parent University (Study Skills class)“Learn how you can help your child use different learning styles to study

and learn effectively”

Page 6: Cracking Common Learning Myths

What kind of evidence would support the hypothesis?Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, & Bjork (2010) suggest a specific

experimental design.

Learning Styles

(Visual) (Verbal)

Verbal

Visual

Page 7: Cracking Common Learning Myths

What kind of evidence would not support the hypothesis?Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, & Bjork (2010) suggest a specific

experimental design.

Learning Styles

(Visual) (Verbal)

Visual

Verbal

Page 8: Cracking Common Learning Myths

What does the evidence show? Only a handful of studies actually examine the hypothesis in a

valid way (Constantinidou & Baker, 2002; Cook, et. al., 2009; Massa & Mayer, 2006; Sternberg, et. al., 1999).

Pashler, et. al., (2010) report: “Remarkably, despite the vast size of the literature on learning styles

and classroom instruction, we found only one study that could be described as even potentially meeting the criteria described earlier, and as we report in the following text, even that study provided less than compelling evidence.”

In other words, evidence that students learn best in their preferred style DOES NOT EXIST.

Learning Styles

Page 9: Cracking Common Learning Myths

Learning Styles

Conclusion: Tailoring instruction to students’ preferred learning style does not improve learning.

What will help?Present information in multiple modes (visually / verbally / practical problems) to all students.

- The effort to integrate information across modes results in meaningful understanding.

Page 10: Cracking Common Learning Myths

Outline

1. Do students learn better in their preferred learning style?- No

2. Does increasing student interest in a lesson result in more learning?

3. After reading, is re-reading an effective learning strategy?

Page 11: Cracking Common Learning Myths

Interest

Lea

rnin

g

Interest and learning

Overall, student interest in a topic does correlate with learning.But, what happens when we “spice up” a lesson to increase interest?

Page 12: Cracking Common Learning Myths

Interest

Lea

rnin

g

Interest and learning

Overall, student interest in a topic does correlate with learning.But, what happens when we “spice up” a lesson to increase interest?

- Interest causes learning

- Interest doesn’t cause learning

Page 13: Cracking Common Learning Myths

Interest and learning: The effect of seductive detailsHarp and Mayer (1998)

What is the effect of adding to a lesson interesting information that will not be tested?

Method: Students read text and illustrated diagrams describing lightning formation

Illustrated text with no seductive details

Illustrated text with seductive details

Test covers common content(lightning formation)

OR

Page 14: Cracking Common Learning Myths

Interest and learning: The effect of seductive detailsHarp and Mayer (1998)

Page 15: Cracking Common Learning Myths

Interest and learning: The effect of seductive detailsHarp and Mayer (1998)

Page 16: Cracking Common Learning Myths

Interest and learning: The effect of seductive details

Page 17: Cracking Common Learning Myths

Interest and learning: The effect of seductive details

Conclusion: Adding interesting information that will not be tested to a lesson consistently HURTS comprehension.

What will help?1. Increase interest for the content you actually want students to learn (harder to do).

2. Be clear – interest increases when students succeed at comprehension

Page 18: Cracking Common Learning Myths

Outline

1. Do students learn better in their preferred learning style- No

2. Does increasing student interest in a lesson result in more learning?- No

3. After reading, is re-reading an effective learning strategy?

Page 19: Cracking Common Learning Myths

As a study strategy, re-reading is the most commonly used technique (Carrier, 2003; Kornell & Bjork, 2007)

Easy to do

Feels like it’s effective

Re-reading after initial studying

Page 20: Cracking Common Learning Myths

How can we remember what we read?

1. Read a text multiple times. 2. Read a text once and recall it from memory.

How does re-reading compare to self-testing?Roediger & Karpicke (2006)

Page 21: Cracking Common Learning Myths

Part 1: Read (study) a text or recall it (test)

Group A. Read texts 4 times (SSSS)Group B. Read 3 times / 1 test (SSST)Group C. Read 1 time / 3 tests (STTT)End of pt. 1 – predict what you will recall one week later

Part 2: Recall text content- 5 min. later- 1 week later

How does re-reading compare to self-testing?Roediger & Karpicke (2006)

Page 22: Cracking Common Learning Myths

Results: Memory predictions (1-7 scale)

SSSS 4.8

SSST 4.2

STTT 4.0

Not significantly different from each other

Effects of studying vs. testing on memoryRoediger & Karpicke (2006)

Page 23: Cracking Common Learning Myths

Results: Part 2 recall performance

Effects of studying vs. testing on memoryRoediger & Karpicke (2006)

Page 24: Cracking Common Learning Myths

Conclusions:1. Re-reading is generally effective if the test is immediately

after reading.

2. Re-reading is much less effective than self-testing if the test is two days or more after reading.

3. Students do not understand the difference in effectiveness of re-reading vs. self-testing.

How does re-reading compare to self-testing?Roediger & Karpicke (2006)

Page 25: Cracking Common Learning Myths

Conclusions:1. Re-reading is generally effective if the test is immediately

after reading.

2. Re-reading is much less effective than self-testing if the test is two days or more after reading.

3. Students do not understand the difference in effectiveness of re-reading vs. self-testing.

What will help?Read what you need to learn, then test yourself by recalling it as well as you can. Then check what you recalled.

How does re-reading compare to self-testing?Roediger & Karpicke (2006)

Page 26: Cracking Common Learning Myths

Outline

1. Do students learn better in their preferred learning style- No

2. Does increasing student interest in a lesson result in more learning?- No

3. After reading, is re-reading an effective learning strategy?- No

Page 27: Cracking Common Learning Myths

General Conclusions

Intuitions about learning lead us to all sorts of conclusions about what is effective.

In general, things that seem like easy ways to take in information also feel like they’re effective:- learning in the style you prefer- being excited by flashy, interesting things- re-reading

However, the most effective learning strategies tend to be those that require deep thought and effort:- integrating information across multiple modes- self-testing