Much of the criticism of learning styles is in reality criticism of a specific type of differentiation, that is, the idea of "teaching to meet the specific learning needs of students across the full range of abilities" (a much more precise definition is offered later in the article). The authors look at the arguments about differentiation, identify some that are "just plain wrong", and offer an analysis of some research to investigate the others. Note that they did not sample studies "differentiating for learning styles or intelligence strengths, or by ability grouping and segregation as there is either no evidence to support their use or because there is clear evidence against their use." What's left of the other studies? A mixed bag, including "great diffusion in how differentiation was conceptualised making it difficult to produce clear findings about whether differentiation works." For me, the literature on differentiation - including learning styles - has yet to come to grips with the question of what counts as success. As the authors acknowledge in this study, "the question of the 'what' in 'what works' in relation to differentiation is yet to be answered, as the diversity in focus... weakens the evidential basis." Here's the full paper (38 page PDF) (note it granted me access to the full text, but warned me that this was 'limited access').
Today: 0 Total: 1113 [Direct link] [Share]
