Table_1_How Common Is Belief in the Learning Styles Neuromyth, and Does It Matter? A Pragmatic Systematic Review.XLSX

A commonly cited use of Learning Styles theory is to use information from self-report questionnaires to assign learners into one or more of a handful of supposed styles (e.g., Visual, Auditory, Converger) and then design teaching materials that match the supposed styles of individual students. A number of reviews, going back to 2004, have concluded that there is currently no empirical evidence that this “matching instruction” improves learning, and it could potentially cause harm. Despite this lack of evidence, survey research and media coverage suggest that belief in this use of Learning Styles theory is high amongst educators. However, it is not clear whether this is a global pattern, or whether belief in Learning Styles is declining as a result of the publicity surrounding the lack of evidence to support it. It is also not clear whether this belief translates into action. Here we undertake a systematic review of research into belief in, and use of, Learning Styles amongst educators. We identified 37 studies representing 15,405 educators from 18 countries around the world, spanning 2009 to early 2020. Self-reported belief in matching instruction to Learning Styles was high, with a weighted percentage of 89.1%, ranging from 58 to 97.6%. There was no evidence that this belief has declined in recent years, for example 95.4% of trainee (pre-service) teachers agreed that matching instruction to Learning Styles is effective. Self-reported use, or planned use, of matching instruction to Learning Styles was similarly high. There was evidence of effectiveness for educational interventions aimed at helping educators understand the lack of evidence for matching in learning styles, with self-reported belief dropping by an average of 37% following such interventions. From a pragmatic perspective, the concerning implications of these results are moderated by a number of methodological aspects of the reported studies. Most used convenience sampling with small samples and did not report critical measures of study quality. It was unclear whether participants fully understood that they were specifically being asked about the matching of instruction to Learning Styles, or whether the questions asked could be interpreted as referring to a broader interpretation of the theory. These findings suggest that the concern expressed about belief in Learning Styles may not be fully supported by current evidence, and highlight the need to undertake further research on the objective use of matching instruction to specific Learning Styles.

学习风格理论在实践中的应用之一，即通过自我报告问卷收集信息，将学习者分配至若干预设的风格类别（例如视觉型、听觉型、收敛型）之中，进而设计符合个体学生风格的教学材料。自2004年起，众多评论研究表明，目前尚无实证证据支持这种“匹配教学”能提升学习效果，甚至可能带来负面影响。尽管缺乏实证依据，调查研究和媒体报道显示，教育工作者普遍相信这一理论的应用。然而，尚不明确这一信念是否为全球性趋势，或是由于缺乏支持其有效性的证据而导致的信念下降。此外，尚不清楚这种信念是否转化为实际行动。本研究对教育工作者对学习风格信念及其应用的研究进行了系统回顾。我们识别出37项研究，涉及来自世界18个国家的15,405名教育工作者，研究时间跨度为2009年至2020年初。对匹配教学与学习风格信念的自我报告显示出高比例，加权百分比为89.1%，范围在58%至97.6%之间。没有证据表明这一信念近年来有所下降，例如95.4%的实习教师（职前教师）认为匹配教学与学习风格是有效的。对匹配教学与学习风格信念的自我报告或计划使用同样显示出高比例。有证据表明，针对帮助教育工作者理解匹配学习风格证据不足的教育干预措施是有效的，此类干预后自我报告的信念平均下降了37%。从实用主义的角度来看，这些结果令人担忧的启示受到报告研究中若干方法论方面的缓和。大多数研究采用便利抽样和样本量小，且未报告研究质量的关键指标。参与者是否充分理解他们被特别询问关于教学与学习风格匹配的问题，或者所提问题是否可以被解读为指涉理论的更广泛解释，尚不明确。这些发现表明，对学习风格信念的担忧可能并未得到现有证据的充分支持，并凸显了进一步研究匹配教学对特定学习风格客观应用之必要。