Editorial Advances in Applying the Science of Learning and Instruction to Education

Begin with a commonly held belief about educational practice and follow the evidence to see if the practice is warranted. This is the approach taken by Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, and Bjork (this volume) concerning the learning-styles hypothesis—the proposal that instructional methods should be aligned with the student’s learning style. Although the learning-styles hypothesis is part of the folklore of educational practice, the authors seek to determine whether there sufficient evidence to justify its implementation. Accordingly, the most compelling evidence for the learning-styles hypothesis would be a crossover interaction in which type A learners learn better with instructional method A whereas type B learners learn better with instructional method B. For example, according to the learning-styles hypothesis, verbal learners will learn best with verbal methods of instruction (e.g., instruction that emphasizes words) whereas visual learners will learn best with visual methods of instruction (e.g., instruction that emphasizes graphics). In line with a classic review by Cronbach and Snow (1977), this pattern can be called an attribute-by-treatment interaction (or ATI). As you can see, the learning-styles hypothesis assumes that there are two (or more) kinds of learners (such as verbalizers versus visualizers) and that it possible to develop instruments that can be used to classify each person’s learning style along each learning style dimension. Learning style refers to a person’s mode of learning—the kind of cognitive processing someone uses during learning (such as verbalizer versus visualizer style or impulsive versus reflective style). Importantly, learning style—such as verbalizer versus visualizer style—is different from cognitive ability—such as verbal ability or spatial ability (Mayer & Massa, 2003). In spite of the fact that the learning-styles hypothesis has been proposed for more than 30 years (Jonassen & Grabowski, 1993; Sternberg & Zhang, 2001), Pashler and colleagues wer