The Tenacity of Learning Styles: A Response to Lodge, Hansen, and Cottrell

Autor/in	Hall, Elaine
Titel	The Tenacity of Learning Styles: A Response to Lodge, Hansen, and Cottrell
Quelle	In: Learning: Research and Practice, 2 (2016) 1, S.18-26 (9 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Hall, Elaine)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	2373-5082
DOI	10.1080/23735082.2016.1139856
Schlagwörter	Stellungnahme; Cognitive Style; Preferences; Learning Theories; Evidence; Student Centered Learning; Educational Research; Instructional Design; Learning Strategies; Measures (Individuals); Research Problems; Criticism + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Cognitive styles; Kognitiver Stil; Learning theory; Lerntheorie; Evidenz; Group work; Student-entered learning; Student-centred learning; Student centred learning; Schülerorientierter Unterricht; Schülerzentrierter Unterricht; Gruppenarbeit; Bildungsforschung; Pädagogische Forschung; Lesson concept; Lessonplan; Unterrichtsentwurf; Learning methode; Learning techniques; Lernmethode; Lernstrategie; Messdaten; Forschungskritik; Kritik
Abstract	The author has been asked to respond to Lodge, Hansen, and Cottrell's recent (2015) paper in this journal and they have done a very thorough and scholarly job of dissecting the weaknesses of modality preference theories. They clearly and carefully analyse the nature of the evidence for modality preference and conclude that there is little if any warrant for the use of modality preference, particularly because task appropriateness has a stronger influence. The author wonders, why have they had to write it? Why was--to pick one out of many--the thorough review by Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, and Bjork (2009) which formed a special issue of Psychological Science in the Public Interest not sufficient? What is it about learning styles that is so resistant to critique? In this commentary, the author will share some of the intellectual process background to a previous review (Coffield, Moseley, Hall, & Ecclestone, 2004a, 2004b; Hall & Moseley, 2005), consider how the work can be said to have impact in terms of academic conversations through published work, and finally, reflect on the many conversations the author has had with teachers in schools, colleges and universities. The author will conclude with her current working hypothesis about the attraction of learner-centred frameworks compared to the ongoing personal challenge of being an interesting and effective teacher. [For the article that the author is responding to, "Modality Preference and Learning Style Theories: Rethinking the Role of Sensory Modality in Learning," see EJ1186493.] (ERIC).
Anmerkungen	Taylor & Francis. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01