Education: Learning styles debunked
Summary of a new report criticizing the lack of validity and reliability in learning styles research
Cognitive Load Theory: Failure? « EdTechDev
Explanation of cognitive load theory and the problems with it, both conceptual and methodological. Lots of sources to dig into deeper if you want more research on this issue.
Numerous contradictions of cognitive load theory’s predictions have been found, but with germane cognitive load, they can still be explained away. de Jong does not use this term (unfalsifiable) but instead states that germane cognitive load is a <em>post-hoc</em> explanation with no theoretical basis: “there seems to be no grounds for asserting that processes that lead to (correct) schema acquisition will impose a higher cognitive load than learning processes that do not lead to (correct) schemas” (2009).
2. <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Poor external validity of lab-based studies</span>. Moreno doesn’t touch on something in the de Jong article – the fact that most cognitive load (and multimedia learning) studies are conducted in labs that “includes participants who have no specific interest in learning the domain involved and who are also given a very short study time” (de Jong, 2009), often only a few minutes. Quite a number of findings from these studies have not held up as strongly when tested in classrooms or real-world scenarios, or have even reversed (<a href="http://www.txwes.edu/professionaldevelopment/materials/Multimedia%20Instructions.pdf">such as the modality effect</a>, but see <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.010">this refutation</a> and this <a href="http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=5135499">other example of a reverse effect</a>).
Do Visual, Auditory, and Kinesthetic Learners Need Visual, Auditory, and Kinesthetic Instruction?
Examines what cognitive science actually tells us about different learning styles and argues that the best answer is to choose the modality that best suits the content rather than adapting to the student.
Ask the Cognitive Scientist: “Brain-Based” Learning: More Fiction than Fact
This article examines several myths of brain-based learning, looking at what the neuroscience research actually tells us. Very little of the research at this point is directly applicable to the classroom; it just doesn't tell us enough about how people learn in real environments.
For neuroscience to mean something to teachers, it must provide information beyond what is available without neuroscientific methods. It’s not enough to describe what’s happening in the brain, and pretend that you’ve learned something useful.
In general, if you are interested in describing effects at a given level of analysis, you are most likely to make progress by sticking to that level of analysis. If you’re interested in describing ways that students learn best, it makes sense to study classroom situations. To the extent that neuroscience will inform good teaching practice, it seems most likely that this influence will be funneled through the cognitive level of analysis: For example, neuroscience will help us better understand memory, and this improved understanding of memory might be used to improve classroom practice. It’s unlikely that leapfrogging the cognitive level analysis and going straight from the brain to the classroom will work out very often.