Psychologists Find No Evidence Supporting Auditory And Visual Learning

[sarahli]

Psychologists Find No Evidence Supporting Auditory And Visual Learning

 

 

The wide appeal of the idea that some students will learn better when material is presented visually and that others will learn better when the material is presented verbally, or even in some other way, is evident in the vast number of learning-style tests and teaching guides available for purchase and used in schools. But does scientific research really support the existence of different learning styles, or the hypothesis that people learn better when taught in a way that matches their own unique style?

 

Unfortunately, the answer is no, according to a major new report published this month in Psychological Science in the Public Interest, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science. The report, authored by a team of eminent researchers in the psychology of learning - Hal Pashler (University of San Diego), Mark McDaniel (Washington University in St. Louis), Doug Rohrer (University of South Florida), and Robert Bjork (University of California, Los Angeles) - reviews the existing literature on learning styles and finds that although numerous studies have purported to show the existence of different kinds of learners (such as "auditory learners" and "visual learners"), those studies have not used the type of randomized research designs that would make their findings credible.

I was wondering why I haven't heard this before... But the article just came out today!

 

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/174370.php

 

After thinking about it, I think most people learn best with a combination of styles, reading and hearing, or hearing and doing, etc. because it is reinforced into the memory. I thought I was a "visual" person, but I realized that I forget as much of what I read as what I hear! I am more likely to remember things that are reinforced with several different senses, in any combination.

 

:bigear:

[usetoschool]

There have been a lot of discussions and books and studies about this lately and I tend to agree with the idea that there are no learning styles. I really like Dan Willingham, who has written a lot about this subject and his arguments have persuaded me.

 

But (big, fat but - like mine after all the Christmas treats :D) I think some of the discussion is comparing apples and oranges. I do still believe, and see played out in my family, that people have different ways of interacting with the world. One daughter wants her driving directions written down and gets lost in her own neighborhood (jk) if she doesn't have it in writing. Another daughter is very physical and spacially oriented and when she is telling you where something is she will stand up and walk through all of the turns and directions.

 

However, I don't think that is the same as a "learning" style. I think communication and interaction with the world are different than learning - actually getting it into your brain and making the connections that say yes, I know and understand and can use that material. I think that involves practice, repetition, making connections with existing knowledge and all of the other things Dr. Willingham talks about in his book (did I mention I really like Dr. Willingham and his book?).

[dirty ethel rackham]

This article is not saying that there can't be evidence to support it. It is saying that the studies out there right now didn't used randomized research methodologies, and therefore, are not to be trusted. However, this does not sound like the type of thing that lends itself well to randomization, IMO.

 

I am on the fence about learning styles. I really thought that my son was a visual learner. But then, we discovered his auditory processing difficulties. Once we addressed those, he was better able to learn auditorily. I am very much a visual learner, but I have some hearing loss, which has lead to some auditory processing difficulties. I get very frustrated at long voice mails - give me written bullet points, baby! Perhaps it is not a style, but an adaptation because of processing issues in other areas. I have seen some really bright kids who seem to learn best kinesthetically. If they are not manipulating something with their hands or moving their bodies, they can't seem to pay attention and focus. So, again, perhaps it is not a particular style, but an adaptation due to some other difficulties.

 

I do agree that involving multiple senses can lead to greater recall. That is setting down more than one pathway.

[tdeveson]

I read this on ScienceDaily a couple of weeks ago and posted it. I'm not a fan of the theory, and it doesn't help that most of the people that are promoting it are concurrently flogging their own books and curricula based on it. I prefer to have my research done by uninterested parties.

[Peela]

Yes, I must admit I dont use it at all really. I read aloud because they seem to learn well that way, but I wouldnt call either of my kids "auditory". Neither needed a lot of hands on, but maybe my dyslexic kid would have been better if he had more hands on. Whatever a kids strength, they should be developing the others anyway. We all need to be able to listen and learn, read and learn, do and learn.

 

But I think like many things- like the "intelligences" theories and all sorts of other things, they are a bit of a fad someone is making a lot of money out of. I tihnk it generally boils down to common sense and doesnt need millions of $ spent on studies. Just ask some homeschooling mums :)

[Renee in NC]

Why does it matter one way or the other?

 

I don't need a scientific study to tell me that my ds remembers all kinds of details from when he built the Nile River but can't remember anything from the multiple times he has listened to Story of the World.:lol:

[Perry]

Why does it matter one way or the other?

It matters to me because schools have spent enormous amounts of resources on a paradigm that is probably useless. I'd prefer they used curricula and teaching methods that have been demonstrated to be effective.

[ereks mom]

 

I don't need a scientific study to tell me that my ds remembers all kinds of details from when he built the Nile River but can't remember anything from the multiple times he has listened to Story of the World.

 

Similar situation here:

 

I have one child who HAD to sit next to me and see the pictures when I would read books to him when he was a preschooler. As a teen, he could not bear to listen to audiobooks of The Lord of the Rings, but loved the books and the movies.

 

And I have one child who couldn't stand to sit next to me as I read; she wanted to dance around while listening to the story. Likewise, as a teen, she can hear a song ONE time and can then sing it herself with the correct tune and words.

Edited December 28, 2009 by ereks mom

[Renee in NC]

It matters to me because schools have spent enormous amounts of resources on a paradigm that is probably useless. I'd prefer they used curricula and teaching methods that have been demonstrated to be effective.

 

Right. There are so many people at the administration level that need to justify their jobs that if it isn't this, it will be something else. I, too, would prefer schools to use curricula and teaching methods that have been demonstrated to be effective, but if they do that, whole swaths of administration would have to be removed!

 

I get what you are saying, though.;)

[LizzyBee]

Why does it matter one way or the other?

 

I don't need a scientific study to tell me that my ds remembers all kinds of details from when he built the Nile River but can't remember anything from the multiple times he has listened to Story of the World.:lol:

 

I agree. I have three children, and they all learn differently. In addition, my dh and I are polar opposites in the way we learn and process information.

[TravelingChris]

I have one child that is what I call auditory. She is unusual and I haven't met any other people like her. She has actual memory problems and did have visual problems that are mostly alleviated but which she had unalleviated for the first 8 years of her life. Here is why I call her auditory- her primary sense is auditory. She remembers songs, words, slogans, etc. She has a very hard time remembering most of what she has read. She doesn't have a hard time remembering what she has heard. Her world is much more sound oriented than a normal persons. She hears sounds much more distinctly and pays so much more attention to sound than anyone else I know. She has a very hard time with diagrams probably because she can't say them. But like I said, I consider her very unusual in this regard and I do think it comes from the unique combination of her seeing problems in her early childhood and her natural musical ability and greater hearing acuity.