Thread by @mededdoc

Okay, I think most of my colleagues already know this, but after just seeing a half dozen articles on the importance of "learning styles" in #MedEd, I thought I'd share the following musings. Twitter 🧵, incoming...

It's undeniable that #learners have important individual differences. A few imp't differences are their use of different learning strategies, their goals & emotions, etc.

However, students' "learning styles" or learning preferences are NOT an important difference! #MedEd

Learning styles "theory" basically says that every individual has a learning style that works best for them. Tons of different models of learning styles have been devised & an entire industry has grown up around these various models w/ most focused on selling measurement tools.

Teachers are asked to use these measurement tools (all of them self-report "survey inventories") to assess their students' learning styles or learning preferences.

But then what?

That brings us to the learning styles "meshing hypothesis"... #MedEd

The learning styles meshing hypothesis states that teachers can improve learning by meshing their instructional methods to their students' learning styles. So, e.g., if someone is a “visual learner,” then the hypothesis would direct us to use teaching methods that use pictures.

By "meshing" teaching method to learning style, the idea is that we’re presenting content in a modality that helps each individual learn best, thereby improving learning for each student.

So, it’s meant to be a "tailored approach" & it certainly seems to make "intuitive" sense.

And many #MedEd / #HPE teachers subscribe to this meshing approach, as the results of this recent @MedTeachJournal study indicated:

tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…

Here's the problem: it's doesn't work!

Most of what’s contained in the learning styles literature has been debunked. There is no good evidence to support the idea that matching our teaching method to our students’ learning styles has any meaningful ➕ effects on learning.

This 2009 paper is the definitive review article that put the nail in the learning styles coffin. The authors reviewed 60 yrs of empirical literature & concluded: “there is no adequate evidence to justify incorporating learning-styles assessments into general educ'l practice.”

In summary...

1) Learners may have individual "preferences" for how they learn & they will happily report this on a survey.

2) But if we match our teaching methods to those individual preferences, it won't improve learning.

3) Fortunately, there are better approaches...

A better approach is to MATCH our teaching or instructional methods to the characteristics of the CONTENT or skills being taught.

Below is a simple example...

#MedEd

Let’s say I want to help students learn the shapes of the different U.S. states, like Florida. Well, then I’m probably going to use images, like a picture of Florida, to help them learn the shape, as opposed to just describing the shape in words.

Such a technique of using visuals to help students learn shapes works for EVERYONE, not just those who describe themselves as “visual learners.”

The same goes for teaching #surgery. I would clearly want to use some hands-on practice DOING the skills required to learn surgery.

But again, it's NOT about matching the teaching method to the preferred learning style – like, using hands-on activities for a kinesthetic learner – it’s about matching the teaching method to the characteristics of the CONTENT or skills being taught.

Finally, we can also take adv of dual coding. It says that when we combine auditory & visual info, learning is ⬆️. That’s b/c humans process auditory & visual info thru 2 separate cognitive channels. Combining pictures w/ words helps ALL learners, not just "visual learners."

For more on this topic, here are a few good articles & other #MedEd & non-MedEd resources:

nytimes.com/2018/10/04/opi…

theatlantic.com/science/archiv…

journals.lww.com/academicmedici…



learningscientists.org