你喜欢哪种口味的菜？你喜欢那种女孩？你知道学生学习也有各自的口味吗？
Review the last class
1. How did you learn in your Swedish lesson?
2. Think about what you did?
3. What did Gary do ( or not do)?
今天，Ailsa，一位语言教法与交际学老师，他给我很大的启发。
Warming up (dicuss and giving the answers)
1. How did you learn in your Swedish lesson? Think about what you did?
Repeating and copying the prounaciation; Guesing and meaning of the sentences; corrcting the cacology; listenning, practicing, and mingling the sentences;
2. What did Gary do ( or not do)?
Moving and acting; not wrting and reading
Questionnaire
To do the investigation paper and sum up the result. Three learning style
Visual learners Kinaesthetic learners
Auditory learners
Analyses and Summary
What's the importance of understanding learning styles?
How might it influence your teaching?
Practice
三个单词讲解方式展开了讨论，呈现每一个单词时容纳不同的learning styles.
如：saxophone，可以通过听它的演奏声、出示图片、观看视频、听录音，做listen read and match，mime and guess等活动尝试满足不同学习类型的学生学习口味的需求。
Some Theories Related to the Three Stlye
A Practical Game
Five Cards，Five Coins and Three Pins.
任选七样物品，排成一排，同伴观察然后用纸遮挡摆出一样的顺序的物品。
任选七样物品，排成一排，用纸遮挡按顺序读给同伴听，读完摆出一样顺序的物品。
任选七样物品，排成一排，同伴闭眼用手触摸物品，然后摆出相同顺序的物品。
你也来看看，以上三种活动分别对应哪种learning style！
Language learning styles
So far in this series of articles I have given information and advice on language learning that is of specific interest to parents of ESL children. The task of learning to function in a foreign language situation is not one restricted to ESL families, however. Everyone at Frankfurt International School - adults and children, teachers and parents - is confronted with the challenge of learning and using a foreign language, whether at school, at work or in their day-to-day life in the German community. Some fortunate people seem to master the difficulties of language learning with great success and little effort, while for others the task is neither an enjoyable nor a successful one. Why should this be the case? What is it that makes learning a new language so easy for some and so difficult for others? In the next few articles I would like to explore answers to these questions, starting this time with a discussion of language learning styles.
Each of us has our own preferred way of learning that is determined by our cultural and educational background and our personalities. Language researchers have categorized the various learning styles in numerous ways. Some researchers have identified different perceptual styles: the visual, the tactile and kinesthetic, and the auditory. Others have looked at cognitive styles and distinguished between field-independent and field-dependent learners. Still others have examined the personality styles of reflectivity and impulsiveness. Let’s briefly examine each of these styles:
Visual learners usually enjoy reading and prefer to see the words that they are learning. They also like to learn by looking at pictures and flashcards.
Auditory learners prefer to learn by listening. They enjoy conversations and the chance for interactions with others. They don’t need to see words written down.
(A recent study has found that Koreans and Japanese students tend to be visual learners, whereas English-speaking Americans prefer the auditory learning style.)
Tactile learners learn by touching and manipulating objects - this is known as “hands-on” work.
Kinesthetic learners like movement and need frequent breaks in desk activities.
Field-independent learners (also called analytic learners) like to concentrate on the details of language, such as grammar rules, and enjoy taking apart words and sentences. They are sometimes unable to see the “big picture” because of their attention to its parts.
Field-dependent learners (also known as global learners) focus on the whole picture and do not care so much about the details. For example, they are more interested in conveying an idea than worrying about whether it is grammatically correct.
Reflective learners like to think about language and how to convey their message accurately. They tend not to make so many mistakes because they take time in formulating what they want to say.
Impulsive learners take risks with the language. They are more concerned with speaking fluently than speaking accurately, and so make more mistakes.
So what are the practical implications of this information for people learning a new language? Firstly, it is useful to put yourself into one or more of the categories that have been identified above. Most people will not find it difficult to identify themselves as a particular kind of learner (although some may feel that their style varies according to the learning situation and the language task). Awareness of your preferred learning style may help to explain why some aspects of language learning seem to come easier than others or are more enjoyable. If you are an analytic learner, you are unlikely to feel comfortable doing a language activity which involves a lot of unstructured, spontaneous speech without any concern for grammatical correctness. An ESL teaching colleague recently experienced the converse situation when doing a grammar activity with her class. The teacher had chosen some personalized examples to demonstrate a grammatical point - how to ask questions about the past. So, for example, in response to the sentences I was born in 1963 and I usually went to school by bicycle students had to say When were you born? and How did you get to school? One of her students, however, was a field-dependent learner whose sole focus was on the communicative meaning of the sentences, not on their value in practising grammar. His response to the statement I fell in love for the first time in grade 6 was not the expected How old were you when you fell in love ..? or What happened in grade 6 ..?”, but What was his name?
The second implication follows from the first. Learners who are in a position to choose how they acquire a new language can ensure that their preferred style matches the teaching methodology of the particular language course they want to enrol in. For example, reflective learners may not fare so well in purely conversational classes and auditory learners will probably want to avoid a course with a heavy reading requirement. Of course many learners have no such choice - language learners at FIS for instance! In general, however, language teachers are aware of the range of learning styles in their classrooms and try to find activities that will at least please all the students at some time during the course.
Despite the amount of research that has been done into learning styles over the last few years, there is no clear evidence that any one style is generally better than another. This is just as well, because we cannot do very much to alter how we prefer to learn. What is much more important in influencing the rate of progress in learning a language are the strategies that are employed in the particular learning situation. For example, how you can improve your chances of understanding a difficult text that you have to read. Language learning strategies will be the subject of the next article.
This summary of language learning styles is based on research into second language acquisition (SLA). There has been a great deal of interest in the last 10 - 20 years on what makes a good language learner. A good starting point for an investigation into learning styles can be found in chapter 5 of Principles of Language Learning and Teaching by H. Brown (1994) New Jersey Prentice Hall. A comparison of the learning styles of different nationalities is in The learning style preferences of ESL students by J. Reid (1987) TESOL Quarterly 21. A further useful summary can be found in Theory and Research: Learning Styles, Motivation, and the CALL Classroom K. Soo (1999) in CALL Environments: Research, Practice and Critical Issues J.Egbert & E. Hanson-Smith (eds.) Virginia TESOL
Learning styles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Learning styles refer to a range of competing and contested theories that aim to account for differences in individuals' learning.[1] These theories propose that all people can be classified according to their 'style' of learning, although the various theories present differing views on how the styles should be defined and categorised.[1]:8 A common concept is that individuals differ in how they learn.[2]:266
The idea of individualized learning styles became popular in the 1970s,[3] and has greatly influenced education despite the criticism that the idea has received from some researchers.[4]:107–108 Proponents recommend that teachers assess the learning styles of their students and adapt their classroom methods to best fit each student's learning style.[5] Although there is ample evidence that individuals express preferences for how they prefer to receive information,[4]:108 few studies have found any validity in using learning styles in education.[2]:267 Critics say there is no evidence that identifying an individual student's learning style produces better outcomes.[6]:33 There is evidence of empirical and pedagogical problems related to forcing learning tasks to "correspond to differences in a one-to-one fashion".[7] Well-designed studies contradict the widespread "meshing hypothesis" that a student will learn best if taught in a method deemed appropriate for the student's learning style.[4]
There are substantial criticisms of learning-styles approaches from scientists who have reviewed extensive bodies of research.[1][4] A 2015 peer reviewed article concluded: "Learning styles theories have not panned out, and it is our responsibility to ensure that students know that."[2]:269 Research-based criticisms of learning styles can be found in § Criticism below.
Contents [hide]
1 Overview of models 1.1 David Kolb's model
1.2 Peter Honey and Alan Mumford's model
1.3 Learning modalities
1.4 Neil Fleming's VAK/VARK model
1.5 Anthony Gregorc's model
1.6 Cognitive approaches
1.7 NASSP model
2 Assessment methods 2.1 Learning Style Inventory
2.2 NASSP Learning Style Profile
2.3 Other methods
3 In the classroom
4 Criticism 4.1 Critique made by Coffield et al.
4.2 Critique of Kolb's model
4.3 Other critiques
4.4 2009 APS critique
5 See also
6 References
7 Further reading
Overview of models[edit]
There are many different learning styles models; one literature review identified 71 different models.[1]:166–168 Only a few models are described below.
David Kolb's model[edit]
David A. Kolb's model is based on his experiential learning model, as explained in his book Experiential Learning.[8] Kolb's model outlines two related approaches toward grasping experience: Concrete Experience and Abstract Conceptualization, as well as two related approaches toward transforming experience: Reflective Observation and Active Experimentation.[8]:145 According to Kolb's model, the ideal learning process engages all four of these modes in response to situational demands; they form a learning cycle from experience to observation to conceptualization to experimentation and back to experience. In order for learning to be effective, Kolb postulated, all four of these approaches must be incorporated. As individuals attempt to use all four approaches, they may tend to develop strengths in one experience-grasping approach and one experience-transforming approach, leading them to prefer one of the following four learning styles:[8]:127[9]
1.Accommodator = Concrete Experience + Active Experiment: strong in "hands-on" practical doing (e.g., physical therapists)
2.Converger = Abstract Conceptualization + Active Experiment: strong in practical "hands-on" application of theories (e.g., engineers)
3.Diverger = Concrete Experience + Reflective Observation: strong in imaginative ability and discussion (e.g., social workers)
4.Assimilator = Abstract Conceptualization + Reflective Observation: strong in inductive reasoning and creation of theories (e.g., philosophers)
Kolb's model gave rise to the Learning Style Inventory, an assessment method used to determine an individual's learning style. According to this model, individuals may exhibit a preference for one of the four styles — Accommodating, Converging, Diverging and Assimilating — depending on their approach to learning in Kolb's experiential learning model.[8]
Although Kolb's model is widely accepted with substantial empirical support and has been revised over the years, a 2013 study suggests that the Learning Style Inventory still "possesses serious weaknesses".[10]:44
Peter Honey and Alan Mumford's model[edit]
Peter Honey and Alan Mumford adapted Kolb's experiential learning model. First, they renamed the stages in the learning cycle to accord with managerial experiences: having an experience, reviewing the experience, concluding from the experience, and planning the next steps.[11]:121–122 Second, they aligned these stages to four learning styles named:[11]:122–124
1.Activist
2.Reflector
3.Theorist
4.Pragmatist
These four learning styles are assumed to be acquired preferences that are adaptable, either at will or through changed circumstances, rather than being fixed personality characteristics. Honey and Mumford's Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ)[12] is a self-development tool and differs from Kolb's Learning Style Inventory by inviting managers to complete a checklist of work-related behaviours without directly asking managers how they learn. Having completed the self-assessment, managers are encouraged to focus on strengthening underutilised styles in order to become better equipped to learn from a wide range of everyday experiences.
A MORI survey commissioned by The Campaign for Learning in 1999 found the Honey and Mumford LSQ to be the most widely used system for assessing preferred learning styles in the local government sector in the UK.[citation needed]
Learning modalities[edit]
Walter Burke Barbe and colleagues proposed three learning modalities (often identified by the acronym VAK):[13]
1.Visualising modality
2.Auditory modality
3.Kinesthetic modality
Descriptions of learning modalities
Visual
Kinesthetic/tactile
Auditory
Picture Gestures Listening
Shape Body movements Rhythms
Sculpture Object manipulation Tone
Paintings Positioning Chants
Barbe and colleagues reported that learning modality strengths can occur independently or in combination (although the most frequent modality strengths, according to their research, are visual or mixed), they can change over time, and they become integrated with age.[14] They also pointed out that learning modality strengths are different from preferences; a person's self-reported modality preference may not correspond to their empirically measured modality strength.[14]:378 This disconnect between strengths and preferences was confirmed by a subsequent study.[15] Nevertheless, some scholars have criticized the VAK model.[16][17] Psychologist Scott Lilienfeld and colleagues have argued that much use of the VAK model is nothing more than pseudoscience or a psychological urban legend.[18]
Neil Fleming's VAK/VARK model[edit]
Neil Fleming's VARK model[19] expanded upon earlier notions of sensory modalities such as the VAK model of Barbe and colleagues[13] and the representational systems (VAKOG) in neuro-linguistic programming.[20] The four sensory modalities in Fleming's model are:[21]
1.Visual learning
2.Auditory learning
3.Read/write learning
4.Kinesthetic learning
Fleming claimed that visual learners have a preference for seeing (visual aids that represent ideas using methods other than words, such as graphs, charts, diagrams, symbols, etc.). Subsequent neuroimaging research has suggested that visual learners convert words into images in the brain and vice versa,[22] but some psychologists have argued that this "is not an instance of learning styles, rather, it is an instance of ability appearing as a style".[2]:268 Likewise, Fleming claimed that auditory learners best learn through listening (lectures, discussions, tapes, etc.), and tactile/kinesthetic learners prefer to learn via experience—moving, touching, and doing (active exploration of the world, science projects, experiments, etc.). Students can use the model to identify their preferred learning style and, it is claimed, maximize their learning by focusing on the mode that benefits them the most. Fleming's model also posits two types of multimodality.[21]
Anthony Gregorc's model[edit]
Anthony Gregorc and Kathleen Butler organized a model describing different learning styles rooted in the way individuals acquire and process information differently.[23] This model posits that an individual's perceptual abilities are the foundation of his or her specific learning strengths, or learning styles.[24]
In this model, there are two perceptual qualities: concrete and abstract, and two ordering abilities: random and sequential.[24] Concrete perceptions involve registering information through the five senses, while abstract perceptions involve the understanding of ideas, qualities, and concepts which cannot be seen. In regard to the two ordering abilities, sequential ordering involves the organization of information in a linear, logical way, and random ordering involves the organization of information in chunks and in no specific order.[24] The model posits that both of the perceptual qualities and both of the ordering abilities are present in each individual, but some qualities and ordering abilities are more dominant within certain individuals.[24]
There are four combinations of perceptual qualities and ordering abilities based on dominance: concrete sequential, abstract random, abstract sequential, and concrete random. The model posits that individuals with different combinations learn in different ways—they have different strengths, different things make sense to them, different things are difficult for them, and they ask different questions throughout the learning process.[24]
The validity of Gregorc's model has been questioned by Thomas Reio and Albert Wiswell following experimental trials.[25] Gregorc argues that his critics have "scientifically-limited views" and that they wrongly repudiate the "mystical elements" of "the spirit" that can only be discerned by a "subtle human instrument".[26]
Cognitive approaches[edit]
Anthony Grasha and Sheryl Riechmann, in 1974, formulated the Grasha-Reichmann Learning Style Scale.[27] It was developed to analyze the attitudes of students and how they approach learning. The test was originally designed to provide teachers with insight on how to approach instructional plans for college students.[28] Grasha's background was in cognitive processes and coping techniques. Unlike some models of cognitive styles which are relatively nonjudgmental, Grasha and Riechmann distinguish between adaptive and maladaptive styles. The names of Grasha and Riechmann's learning styles are:
avoidant
participative
competitive
collaborative
dependent
independent
Aiming to explain why aptitude tests, school grades, and classroom performance often fail to identify real ability, Robert Sternberg listed various cognitive dimensions in his book Thinking Styles.[29] Several other models are also often used when researching cognitive styles; some of these models are described in books that Sternberg co-edited, such as Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles.[30][31][32]
NASSP model[edit]
In the 1980s, the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) formed a task force to study learning styles.[33] The task force defined three broad categories of style—cognitive, affective, and physiological—and 31 variables, including the perceptual strengths and preferences from the VAK model of Barbe and colleagues,[14] but also many other variables such as need for structure, types of motivation, time of day preferences, and so on.[33]:141–143 They defined a learning style as "a gestalt—not an amalgam of related characteristics but greater than any of its parts. It is a composite of internal and external operations based in neurobiology, personality, and human development and reflected in learner behavior."[33]:141
Cognitive styles are preferred ways of perception, organization and retention.
Affective styles represent the motivational dimensions of the learning personality; each learner has a personal motivational approach.
Physiological styles are bodily states or predispositions, including sex-related differences, health and nutrition, and reaction to physical surroundings, such as preferences for levels of light, sound, and temperature.[33]:141
According to the NASSP task force, styles are hypothetical constructs that help to explain the learning (and teaching) process. They posited that one can recognize the learning style of an individual student by observing his or her behavior.[33]:138 Learning has taken place only when one observes a relatively stable change in learner behavior resulting from what has been experienced.
Assessment methods[edit]
Learning Style Inventory[edit]
The Learning Style Inventory (LSI) is connected with David A. Kolb's model and is used to determine a student's learning style.[9] Previous versions of the LSI have been criticized for problems with validity, reliability, and other issues.[10][34][35] Version 4 of the Learning Style Inventory replaces the four learning styles of previous versions with nine new learning styles: initiating, experiencing, imagining, reflecting, analyzing, thinking, deciding, acting, and balancing.[36] The LSI is intended to help employees or students "understand how their learning style impacts upon problem solving, teamwork, handling conflict, communication and career choice; develop more learning flexibility; find out why teams work well—or badly—together; strengthen their overall learning."[36]
A completely different Learning Styles Inventory is associated with a binary division of learning styles, developed by Richard Felder and Linda Silverman.[37] In Felder and Silverman's model, learning styles are a balance between pairs of extremes such as: Active/Reflective, Sensing/Intuitive, Verbal/Visual, and Sequential/Global. Students receive four scores describing these balances.[38] Like the LSI mentioned above, this inventory provides overviews and synopses for teachers.
NASSP Learning Style Profile[edit]
The NASSP Learning Style Profile (LSP) is a second-generation instrument for the diagnosis of student cognitive styles, perceptual responses, and study and instructional preferences.[39] The LSP is a diagnostic tool intended as the basis for comprehensive style assessment with students in the sixth to twelfth grades. It was developed by the National Association of Secondary School Principals research department in conjunction with a national task force of learning style experts. The Profile was developed in four phases with initial work undertaken at the University of Vermont (cognitive elements), Ohio State University (affective elements), and St. John's University (physiological/environmental elements). Rigid validation and normative studies were conducted using factor analytic methods to ensure strong construct validity and subscale independence.
The LSP contains 23 scales representing four higher order factors: cognitive styles, perceptual responses, study preferences and instructional preferences (the affective and physiological elements). The LSP scales are: analytic skill, spatial skill, discrimination skill, categorizing skill, sequential processing skill, simultaneous processing skill, memory skill, perceptual response: visual, perceptual response: auditory, perceptual response: emotive, persistence orientation, verbal risk orientation, verbal-spatial preference, manipulative preference, study time preference: early morning, study time preference: late morning, study time preference: afternoon, study time preference: evening, grouping preference, posture preference, mobility preference, sound preference, lighting preference, temperature preference.[39]
Other methods[edit]
Other methods (usually questionnaires) used to identify learning styles include Neil Fleming's VARK Questionnaire[19] and Jackson's Learning Styles Profiler.[1]:56–59 Many other tests have gathered popularity and various levels of credibility among students and teachers.
In the classroom[edit]
Various researchers have attempted to hypothesize ways in which learning style theory can be used in the classroom. Two such scholars are Rita Dunn and Kenneth Dunn, who build upon a learning modalities approach.[1]:20–35[40]
Although learning styles will inevitably differ among students in the classroom, Dunn and Dunn say that teachers should try to make changes in their classroom that will be beneficial to every learning style. Some of these changes include room redesign, the development of small-group techniques, and the development of "contract activity packages".[40] Redesigning the classroom involves locating dividers that can be used to arrange the room creatively (such as having different learning stations and instructional areas), clearing the floor area, and incorporating student thoughts and ideas into the design of the classroom.[40]
Dunn and Dunn's "contract activity packages" are educational plans that use: a clear statement of the learning need; multisensory resources (auditory, visual, tactile, kinesthetic); activities through which the newly mastered information can be used creatively; the sharing of creative projects within small groups; at least three small-group techniques; a pre-test, a self-test, and a post-test.[40]
Another scholar who believes that learning styles should have an effect on the classroom is Marilee Sprenger in Differentiation through Learning Styles and Memory.[41] She bases her work on three premises:
1.Teachers can be learners, and learners teachers. We are all both.
2.Everyone can learn under the right circumstances.
3.Learning is fun! Make it appealing.[41][page needed]
Sprenger details how to teach in visual, auditory, or tactile/kinesthetic ways. Methods for visual learners include ensuring that students can see words written, using pictures, and drawing timelines for events.[41][page needed] Methods for auditory learners include repeating words aloud, small-group discussion, debates, listening to books on tape, oral reports, and oral interpretation.[41][page needed] Methods for tactile/kinesthetic learners include hands-on activities (experiments, etc.), projects, frequent breaks to allow movement, visual aids, role play, and field trips.[41][page needed] By using a variety of teaching methods from each of these categories, teachers cater to different learning styles at once, and improve learning by challenging students to learn in different ways.
James W. Keefe and John M. Jenkins have incorporated learning style assessment as a basic component in their "personalized instruction" model of schooling.[42] Six basic elements constitute the culture and context of personalized instruction. The cultural components—teacher role, student learning characteristics, and collegial relationships—establish the foundation of personalization and ensure that the school prizes a caring and collaborative environment. The contextual factors—interactivity, flexible scheduling, and authentic assessment—establish the structure of personalization.[42][page needed]
According to Keefe and Jenkins, cognitive and learning style analysis have a special role in the process of personalizing instruction. The assessment of student learning style, more than any other element except the teacher role, establishes the foundation for a personalized approach to schooling: for student advisement and placement, for appropriate retraining of student cognitive skills, for adaptive instructional strategy, and for the authentic evaluation of learning.[42][page needed] Some learners respond best in instructional environments based on an analysis of their perceptual and environmental style preferences: most individualized and personalized teaching methods reflect this point of view. Other learners, however, need help to function successfully in any learning environment. If a youngster cannot cope under conventional instruction, enhancing his cognitive skills may make successful achievement possible.[42][page needed]
Many of the student learning problems that learning style diagnosis attempts to solve relate directly to elements of the human information processing system. Processes such as attention, perception and memory, and operations such as integration and retrieval of information are internal to the system. Any hope for improving student learning necessarily involves an understanding and application of information processing theory. Learning style assessment can provide a window to understanding and managing this process.[42][page needed]
At least one study evaluating teaching styles and learning styles, however, has found that congruent groups have no significant differences in achievement from incongruent groups.[43] Furthermore, learning style in this study varied by demography, specifically by age, suggesting a change in learning style as one gets older and acquires more experience. While significant age differences did occur, as well as no experimental manipulation of classroom assignment, the findings do call into question the aim of congruent teaching–learning styles in the classroom.[1]:122
Educational researchers Eileen Carnell and Caroline Lodge concluded that learning styles are not fixed and that they are dependent on circumstance, purpose and conditions.[44]
Criticism[edit]
Learning style theories have been criticized by many scholars and researchers. Some psychologists and neuroscientists have questioned the scientific basis for separating out students based on learning style. According to Susan Greenfield the practice is "nonsense" from a neuroscientific point of view: "Humans have evolved to build a picture of the world through our senses working in unison, exploiting the immense interconnectivity that exists in the brain."[45]
Many educational psychologists have shown that there is little evidence for the efficacy of most learning style models, and furthermore, that the models often rest on dubious theoretical grounds.[46][47] According to professor of education Steven Stahl, there has been an "utter failure to find that assessing children's learning styles and matching to instructional methods has any effect on their learning."[48] Professor of education Guy Claxton has questioned the extent that learning styles such as VARK are helpful, particularly as they can have a tendency to label children and therefore restrict learning.[49] Similarly, psychologist Kris Vasquez pointed out a number of problems with learning styles, including the lack of empirical evidence that learning styles are useful in producing student achievement, but also her more serious concern that the use of learning styles in the classroom could lead students to develop self-limiting implicit theories about themselves that could become self-fulfilling prophecies that are harmful, rather than beneficial, to the goal of serving student diversity.[6]
Psychologists Scott Lilienfeld, Barry Beyerstein, and colleagues listed as one of the "50 great myths of popular psychology" the idea that "students learn best when teaching styles are matched to their learning styles", and they summarized some relevant reasons not to believe this "myth".[18]
Critique made by Coffield et al.[edit]
A 2004 non-peer-reviewed literature review by authors from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne criticized most of the main instruments used to identify an individual's learning style.[1] In conducting the review, Frank Coffield and his colleagues selected 13 of the most influential models of the 71 models they identified,[1]:8–9 including most of the models cited on this page. They examined the theoretical origins and terms of each model, and the instrument that purported to assess individuals against the learning styles defined by the model. They analyzed the claims made by the author(s), external studies of these claims, and independent empirical evidence of the relationship between the learning style identified by the instrument and students' actual learning. Coffield's team found that none of the most popular learning style theories had been adequately validated through independent research, leading to the conclusion that the idea of a learning cycle, the consistency of visual, auditory and kinesthetic preferences and the value of matching teaching and learning styles were all "highly questionable".[1]:26
One of the most widely known theories assessed by Coffield's team was the learning styles model of Dunn and Dunn. This model is widely used in schools in the United States, and 177 articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals referring to this model.[1]:20 The conclusion of Coffield and colleagues was: "Despite a large and evolving research programme, forceful claims made for impact are questionable because of limitations in many of the supporting studies and the lack of independent research on the model."[1]:35
Coffield's team claimed that another model, Anthony Gregorc's Gregorc Style Delineator, was "theoretically and psychometrically flawed" and "not suitable for the assessment of individuals".[1]:20
Critique of Kolb's model[edit]
Mark K. Smith compiled and reviewed some critiques of Kolb's model in his article, "David A. Kolb on Experiential Learning". According to Smith's research, there are six key issues regarding the model:
1.The model doesn't adequately address the process of reflection;
2.The claims it makes about the four learning styles are extravagant;
3.It doesn't sufficiently address the fact of different cultural conditions and experiences;
4.The idea of stages/steps doesn't necessarily match reality;
5.It has only weak empirical evidence;
6.The relationship between learning processes and knowledge is more complex than Kolb draws it.[50]
It should be noted, however, that the most recent work by Kolb that Smith cites is from 2005, and he does not address the changes in the 2015 edition of Kolb's book Experiential Learning.[8]
Other critiques[edit]
Coffield and his colleagues and Mark Smith are not alone in their judgements. Demos, a UK think tank, published a report on learning styles prepared by a group chaired by David Hargreaves that included Usha Goswami from the University of Cambridge and David Wood from the University of Nottingham. The Demos report said that the evidence for learning styles was "highly variable", and that practitioners were "not by any means always frank about the evidence for their work".[51]:11
Cautioning against interpreting neuropsychological research as supporting the applicability of learning style theory, John Geake, Professor of Education at the UK's Oxford Brookes University, and a research collaborator with Oxford University's Centre for Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain, commented: "We need to take extreme care when moving from the lab to the classroom. We do remember things visually and aurally, but information isn't defined by how it was received."[52]
The work of Daniel T. Willingham also holds true to the idea that there is not enough evidence to support a theory describing the differences in learning styles amongst students. In his book Why Don't Students Like School,[53] he claims that a cognitive styles theory must have three features: "it should consistently attribute to a person the same style, it should show that people with different abilities think and learn differently, and it should show that people with different styles do not, on average, differ in ability."[53][page needed] That being said, he concludes that there are no theories that have these three crucial characteristics, not necessarily implying that cognitive styles don't exist but rather stating that psychologists are unable to "find them".[53][page needed]
2009 APS critique[edit]
In late 2009, the journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest of the Association for Psychological Science (APS) published a report on the scientific validity of learning styles practices.[4] The panel of experts that wrote the article, led by Harold Pashler of the University of California, San Diego, concluded that an adequate evaluation of the learning styles hypothesis—the idea that optimal learning demands that students receive instruction tailored to their learning styles—requires a particular kind of study. Specifically, students should be grouped into the learning style categories that are being evaluated (e.g., visual learners vs. verbal learners), and then students in each group must be randomly assigned to one of the learning methods (e.g., visual learning or verbal learning), so that some students will be "matched" and others will be "mismatched". At the end of the experiment, all students must sit for the same test. If the learning style hypothesis is correct, then, for example, visual learners should learn better with the visual method, whereas auditory learners should learn better with the auditory method. As disclosed in the report, the panel found that studies utilizing this essential research design were virtually absent from the learning styles literature. In fact, the panel was able to find only a few studies with this research design, and all but one of these studies were negative findings—that is, they found that the same learning method was superior for all kinds of students.[4] Examples of such negative findings include the research of Laura J. Massa and Richard E. Mayer,[54] as well as more recent research since the 2009 review.[2][55][56]
Furthermore, the panel noted that, even if the requisite finding were obtained, the benefits would need to be large, and not just statistically significant, before learning style interventions could be recommended as cost-effective. That is, the cost of evaluating and classifying students by their learning style, and then providing customized instruction would need to be more beneficial than other interventions (e.g., one-on-one tutoring, after school remediation programs, etc.).[4]:116–117
As a consequence, the panel concluded, "at present, there is no adequate evidence base to justify incorporating learning styles assessments into general educational practice. Thus, limited education resources would better be devoted to adopting other educational practices that have strong evidence base, of which there are an increasing number."[4]:105
The article incited critical comments from some defenders of learning styles. The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that Robert Sternberg from Tufts University spoke out against the paper: "Several of the most-cited researchers on learning styles, Mr. Sternberg points out, do not appear in the paper's bibliography."[57] This charge was also discussed by Science, which reported that Pashler said, "Just so... most of [the evidence] is 'weak'."[58] The Chronicle reported that even David A. Kolb partly agreed with Pashler; Kolb said: "The paper correctly mentions the practical and ethical problems of sorting people into groups and labeling them. Tracking in education has a bad history."[57]
NLP12条精髓
编辑
一、没有两个人是一样的
No two persons are the same.
1．没有两个人的人生经验会完全一样，所以没有两个人的信念、价值观和规条系统会是一样。
2．因此没有两个人对同一件事的看法能够绝对一致。
3．因此没有两个人对同一件事的反应会是一样。
4．因此没有两个人的态度和行为模式会完全一样。
5．因此发生在一个人身上的事，不能假定发生在另一个人身上也会有一样的结果。
6．人与人之间的不同，建造了这个世界的奇妙可贵。
7．尊重别人的不同之处，别人才会尊重自己独特的地方。
8．每一个人的信念、价值观和规条系统都是在不断演变中，所以没有一个人在两分钟是一样的。
9．两人的信念、价值观和规条不一样，不一定会使两个人不能沟通或者不能发展出良好关系。
10．给别人空间也就是尊重别人的信念、价值观和规条，才能有良好的沟通和关系。
11．同样地，自己与别人的看法不同，也是正常的事。
12．当尊重别人的信念、价值观和规条的同时，我们也有权利要求别人尊重自己的信念，价值观和规条。
二、一个人不能控制另外一个人
One person cannot change another person.
1．一个人不能改变另外一个人，一个人只能改变自己。
2．每个人的信念、价值观、规条系统只对本人有效，不应强求别人接受。
3．改变自己，别人才会有可能改变。
4．一个人不能推动另外一个人。每个人都只可以自己推动自己。
5．找出对方的价值观，创造、增大或转移对方在乎的价值，对方便会产生推动自己的行为。
6．因此一个人不能“教导”另外一个人。一个人只能引导另外一个人去学习。
7．因此一个人不能希望另外一人放弃自己的一套信念、价值观和规条系统，而去接受另外的一套。
8．好的动机只给一个人去做某一件事的原因，但是不能给他控制别人，或使事情恰如他所愿发生的权利。
9．不强迫别人跟随自己的一套信念、价值观和规条，别人便不会抗拒。
10．同样地，我们只能自己推动自己。
三、有效果比有道理更重要
Usefulness is more important.
1．光说做法有道理或者正确而不顾是否效果，是在自欺欺人。
2．在三赢（我好、人好、世界好）的原则基础上追求效果，比坚持什么是对的更有意义。
3．说道理往往是把焦点放在过去的事情上；注重效果则容易把注意力放在未来。
4．效果是原定计划的意义基础，亦是所有行动的指标。
5．有道理是由理性方面的标准来决定的。因为没有两个人的信念、价值观和规条是一样，所以，没有两个人的“道理”是一样的。
6．故此，坚持道理，只不过是坚持一套不能放在另一个人身上的信念、价值观和规条。
7．真正推动一个人的力量是在感性的一边，要有效果就要加上理性方面的认同。故此，有效果需要一个人的理性和感性上的共鸣。
8．没有效果的道理，是背弃了信念和价值的规条，应该加以检讨。
9．有效和有道理往往可以并存，但必先由相信有这个可能的信念开始。
10．只追求有道理但无效果的人生，难以有成功和快乐的体验。
四、只有由感官经验塑造出来的世界，没有绝对的真实世界
The map is not territory.1．每个人运用自己的感官器官把资料摄入（摄入过程），由感官运用是主观地有选择性的，因为不能，亦不需要把所有资料捕捉。
2．摄入的资料经由我们的信念、价值观和规条过滤而决定其意义，亦因此能储存在脑中（编码过程）。我们的信念、价值观和规条是主观的形成的，故此，过滤出来的意义也是主观的。
3．我们每一个人的世界，都是用上述的方式一点一滴地塑造出来的亦因此是主观的。
4．我们只能用这种方式建立对这个世界的认知，没有其他方法。5．因此没有绝对的真实，或者相对的真实。
6．因此每个人的世界是在他的脑里。我们是凭脑里对世界的认知去处理每一件事。
7．因此，改变一个人脑里的世界，这个人对世界中事物的态度便会改变。
8．因此，每个人都是用自制的地图在这个世界里生活。
9．改变主观经验在脑里的结构模式，事情对我们的影响便会改变，我们对事情的感受亦会改变。因此，我们无须改变外面的世界（我们无法知道它是怎样变的）。改变我们自己（脑里的世界），我们的人生便会有所改变。
10．事情从来都不会给我们压力，压力是来自我们对事情的反应。
11．情绪也从来不是来自某人的言行，或环境里出现的转变，而是来自我们对这些的态度，亦即是我们的信念、价值观和规条系统。
五、沟通的意义在于对方的回应
The meaning of communication is the response one gets.
1．沟通没有对与错，只有“有效果”或者“没有效果”之分。
2．自己说得多“对”没有意义，对方收到你想表达的讯息才是沟通意义。
3．因此自己说什么不重要，对方听到什么才重要。
4．话有很多方法说出来，使听者完全收到讲者意图传达的讯息，便是正确的方法。
5．沟通的效果，来自声调和身体语言的比文字更大。
6．沟通讯息的送出与接受在潜意识层面的比意识层面的大得多。
7．没有两个人对同样的讯息有完全同样的反应。
8．说话的效果由讲者控制，但由听者决定。
9．改变说的方法，才有机会改变听的效果。
10．沟通成功的先决条件是和谐气氛。
11．抗拒是对讲者不够灵活的说明。
六、重复旧的做法，只会得到旧的结果
Repeating the same behavior will repeat the same result.
1．做法有不同，结果才会有不同。
2．如果你的事没有结果，改变你的做法。任何新的做法，都比旧的多一分成功机会。
3．想明天比昨天更好，必须用与昨天不同的做法。4．改变自己，别人才有可能改变。
5．世界上本来便是每样事物都在不停地改变中，不肯改变的便面临淘汰或失败的威胁。
6．因此只有不断的改变做法，才能保持与其他事物关系有理想状态。
7．“做法”是规条，目的是取得价值，实现信念。维持最有效果的规条，就是灵活地不断修正做法，才能保证取得价值，实现信念。
8．改变是所有进步的起点。
七、凡事必有至少三个解决方法
There are at least three solutions to every situation.
1．对事情只有一个方法的人，必陷入困境，因为别无选择。
2．对事情有两个方法的人也陷困境，因为他制造了左右两难、进退维谷的局面给自己。
3．有第三个方法的人，通常会找到第四、五个方法，甚至更多的方法。4．有选择就是有能力。所以，有选择总比没有选择好。
5．至今不成功，只是说至今用过的方法都得不到想要的效果。
6．没有办法，只是说已知的办法都行不通。
7．世界上尚有很多我们过去没有想过，或者尚未认识的方法。
8．只有相信尚有未知的有效方法，才会有机会找到它和使事情改变。
9．不论什么事情，我们总有选择的权利，而且不只是一个。
10．“没有办法”使事情划上句号，“总有办法”使事情有突破的可能。
11．“没有办法”对你没有好处，应停止想它；“总有办法”对你有好处，故应把它留在脑中。
12．为何不使自己成为第一个找出办法的人？
八、每一个人都选择给自己最佳利益的行为
Every one chooses the best behavior at the moment.
1．每一个人做任何事都是为满足自己的一些深层需要。
2．每一个人的行为，对他的潜意识来说，都是当时环境里最符合自己利益的做法。
3．因此，每个行为的背后，都必定有正面的动机。
4．了解和接受其正面动机，才容易引导一个人改变他的行为。
5．动机不会错，只是行为不能达到效果。（满足背后正面动机的效果）
6．接受一个人的动机，他便会觉得我们接受他这个人。
7．动机往往是在潜意识的层面，不能意识地说出来。8．找出行为背后的动机，最易的方法是问企图经由该行为得到的价值是什么。
9．任何行为在某些环境中都会有其效用。
10．因此，没有不对的行为，只有在当时环境中没有效果的行为。
九、每个人都已经具备使自己成功快乐的资源
Every one already possesses all the resources needed.
1．每一个人都有过成功快乐的经验，也即是说有使自己成功快乐的能力。
2．人类只用了大脑能力的极少部分，提升大脑的运用，很多新的突破便会出现。
3．运用大脑的能力，已有大量的技巧发展出来，人类比以前更易把效果提升。
4．每一个人都可以凭改变思想去改变自己的情绪和行为，进而改变自己的人生。
5．每天里遇到的事情，都有能给我们成功快乐的因素，取舍全由个人决定。
6．所有事情或经验里面，正面和负面的意义同时存在，把事情或经验转为绊脚石抑或踏脚石，由自己决定。
7．成功快乐的人所拥有的思想和行为能力，都是经过一个过程而培养出来的。在开始的时候，他们与其他人所具备的条件一样。
8．有能力替自己制造出困扰的人，也有能力替自己消除困扰。
9．情绪、压力、困扰都不是源自外界的人事物，而是由自己内里的信念、价值观和规条系统产生出来的。
10．自己不信有能力或有可能，是使自己得不到渴求的成功快乐的最有效的保证。
十、在任何一个系统里，最灵活的部分便是最能影响大局的部分
In any system,the most flexible person has the control.
1．灵活便是有一个以上的选择；选择便是能力。因此最灵活的人便是最有能力的人。
2、灵活来自减少行使自己的一套信念、价值观和规条，而多凭观察而运用环境所提供的其他条件。
3．灵活是使事情更快有效果的重要因素。因此，亦是人生成功快乐的重要因素。
4．灵活亦是自信的表现。自信越不足，坚持某个模式的态度会越强硬。
5．容许不同的意见和可能性，便是灵活。
6．在一个群体中，固执使人紧张，灵活使人放松。
7．灵活不代表放弃自己的立场，而是容许找出双赢的可能性（更进一步而三赢）。
8．在沟通中，明白不代表接受；接受不代表投降（放弃立场）。
9．“流水”是学习灵活的最好老师。
10．灵活是用自己的步伐去作出转变；而固执则是在被迫的情况下作出转变。
十一、没有挫败，只有回应讯息
There is no failure,only feedback.
1．“挫败”只是指出过去的做法得不到期望的效果，是给我们需要改变的信号。
2．“挫败”只是在事情划上句号时才能用上，欲想事情解决，即让事情仍会继续下去，这二字便不适用。
3．“挫败”是指过去的事；“怎样改变做法”是指向未来。
4．挫败是过去的经验；而经验是让我们提升自我的踏脚石，因为经验是能力的基础，而能力是自信的基础。
5．每次“挫败”，都只不过是学习过程里修正行动的其中一步。
6．人生里所有的学习，都是经由不断地修正而达致完善。
7．想要成功，首先要相信有成功的可能。
8．把每次的“挫败”带来的教训掌握了，每次便都变成了学习。
9．自信不足的人，潜意识总是在找“不用干下去”的藉口，“挫败”二字便很容易冒出来。
十二、动机和情绪总不会错，只是行为没有效果而已
Intentions and emotions are never wrong,only the behavior has not been effective.
1．动机在潜意识里。总是正面的。潜意识从来不会伤害自己，只是误会地以为某行为可以满足该动机，而又不知有其他做法的可能。
2．情绪总是给我们一份推动力。情绪是使我们在该事情之中有所学习。学到了，情绪便会消失。
3．我们可以接受一个人的动机和情绪，同时不接受他的行为。
4．接受动机和情绪，便是接受那个人。那个人也会感觉出你对他的接受，因而更肯让你去引导他作出改变。
5．任何一次行为不等于一个人。
6．行为不能接受，是因为没有效果；找出更好的做法，是两人的共同目标，能使两人有更好的沟通和关系。
7．找出更好的做法的方法之一是追查动机背后的价值观。
