The document discusses three common myths about learning: 1) that students learn best in their preferred learning style, 2) that increasing student interest results in more learning, and 3) that re-reading is an effective study strategy. For each myth, the document reviews relevant research studies that show these beliefs are not supported. The research finds that learning is improved through presenting information in multiple modes, interest does not necessarily cause learning, and self-testing is more effective for long-term retention than re-reading. The intuitions about effective learning do not align with evidence from scientific studies.

1. Cracking Common Learning Myths
Michael B. Wolfe
Grand Valley State University
West MI Community Literacy Summit
Sept. 25, 2013

2. Outline
1. Do students learn better in their preferred learning style?
2. Does increasing student interest in a lesson result in more
learning?
3. After reading, is re-reading an effective learning strategy?

3. Learning styles hypothesis:
Students differ in how they learn (visually, verbally, etc.).
Learning can be improved when instruction for a student matches
the student’s preferred style.
Learning Styles Inventories (there are many dozens):
Dunn and Dunn learning styles model
Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire
Learning Styles Inventory
VARK Questionnaire (Visual, Aural, Reading/writing,
Kinsethetic)
Learning Styles

4. Many educators believe the learning styles hypothesis
Learning Styles

5. Many people believe the learning styles hypothesis
Learning Styles
Scientific journals (Zapalska and Dabb, 2002)
“The achievement of college students could be improved by providing
instruction in a manner consistent with each student’s learning style.”
Congressman Justin Amash
“Government-mandated curriculums and teaching methods do not
properly account for different learning styles.”
GRPS Parent University (Study Skills class)
“Learn how you can help your child use different learning styles to study
and learn effectively”

6. What kind of evidence would support the hypothesis?
Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, & Bjork (2010) suggest a specific
experimental design.
Learning Styles
(Visual) (Verbal)
Verbal
Visual

7. What kind of evidence would not support the hypothesis?
Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, & Bjork (2010) suggest a specific
experimental design.
Learning Styles
(Visual) (Verbal)
Visual
Verbal

8. What does the evidence show?
Only a handful of studies actually examine the hypothesis in a
valid way (Constantinidou & Baker, 2002; Cook, et. al., 2009; Massa &
Mayer, 2006; Sternberg, et. al., 1999).
Pashler, et. al., (2010) report:
“Remarkably, despite the vast size of the literature on learning styles
and classroom instruction, we found only one study that could be
described as even potentially meeting the criteria described
earlier, and as we report in the following text, even that study
provided less than compelling evidence.”
In other words, evidence that students learn best in their preferred
style DOES NOT EXIST.
Learning Styles

9. Learning Styles
Conclusion: Tailoring instruction to students’ preferred learning
style does not improve learning.
What will help?
Present information in multiple modes (visually / verbally /
practical problems) to all students.
- The effort to integrate information across modes results in
meaningful understanding.

10. Outline
1. Do students learn better in their preferred learning style?
- No
2. Does increasing student interest in a lesson result in more
learning?
3. After reading, is re-reading an effective learning strategy?

11. Interest
Learning
Interest and learning
Overall, student interest in a topic does correlate with learning.
But, what happens when we “spice up” a lesson to increase interest?

12. Interest
Learning
Interest and learning
Overall, student interest in a topic does correlate with learning.
But, what happens when we “spice up” a lesson to increase interest?
- Interest causes learning
- Interest doesn’t cause learning

13. Interest and learning: The effect of seductive details
Harp and Mayer (1998)
What is the effect of adding to a lesson interesting information that will not be
tested?
Method: Students read text and illustrated diagrams describing lightning
formation
Illustrated text with no
seductive details
Illustrated text with
seductive details
Test covers common content
(lightning formation)
OR

14. Interest and learning: The effect of seductive details
Harp and Mayer (1998)

15. Interest and learning: The effect of seductive details
Harp and Mayer (1998)

16. Interest and learning: The effect of seductive details

17. Interest and learning: The effect of seductive details
Conclusion: Adding interesting information that will not be tested
to a lesson consistently HURTS comprehension.
What will help?
1. Increase interest for the content you actually want students to
learn (harder to do).
2. Be clear – interest increases when students succeed at
comprehension

18. Outline
1. Do students learn better in their preferred learning style
- No
2. Does increasing student interest in a lesson result in more learning?
- No
3. After reading, is re-reading an effective learning strategy?

19. As a study strategy, re-reading is the most commonly used
technique (Carrier, 2003; Kornell & Bjork, 2007)
Easy to do
Feels like it’s effective
Re-reading after initial studying

20. How can we remember what we read?
1. Read a text multiple times.
2. Read a text once and recall it from memory.
How does re-reading compare to self-testing?
Roediger & Karpicke (2006)

21. Part 1: Read (study) a text or recall it (test)
Group A. Read texts 4 times (SSSS)
Group B. Read 3 times / 1 test (SSST)
Group C. Read 1 time / 3 tests (STTT)
End of pt. 1 – predict what you will recall one week later
Part 2: Recall text content
- 5 min. later
- 1 week later
How does re-reading compare to self-testing?
Roediger & Karpicke (2006)

22. Results: Memory predictions (1-7 scale)
SSSS 4.8
SSST 4.2
STTT 4.0
Not significantly different from each other
Effects of studying vs. testing on memory
Roediger & Karpicke (2006)

23. Results: Part 2 recall performance
Effects of studying vs. testing on memory
Roediger & Karpicke (2006)

24. Conclusions:
1. Re-reading is generally effective if the test is immediately
after reading.
2. Re-reading is much less effective than self-testing if the test
is two days or more after reading.
3. Students do not understand the difference in effectiveness of
re-reading vs. self-testing.
How does re-reading compare to self-testing?
Roediger & Karpicke (2006)

25. Conclusions:
1. Re-reading is generally effective if the test is immediately
after reading.
2. Re-reading is much less effective than self-testing if the test is
two days or more after reading.
3. Students do not understand the difference in effectiveness of
re-reading vs. self-testing.
What will help?
Read what you need to learn, then test yourself by recalling
it as well as you can. Then check what you recalled.
How does re-reading compare to self-testing?
Roediger & Karpicke (2006)

26. Outline
1. Do students learn better in their preferred learning style
- No
2. Does increasing student interest in a lesson result in more learning?
- No
3. After reading, is re-reading an effective learning strategy?
- No

27. General Conclusions
Intuitions about learning lead us to all sorts of conclusions about what
is effective.
In general, things that seem like easy ways to take in information also
feel like they’re effective:
- learning in the style you prefer
- being excited by flashy, interesting things
- re-reading
However, the most effective learning strategies tend to be those that
require deep thought and effort:
- integrating information across multiple modes
- self-testing