W1 1 WEEK 1 WELCOME TO WRITING The first exercises for this course ask you to try out writing in response to another writer. This opening assignment also helps you practise key habits of mind that underlie writing in the university: careful reading of complex material, identifying and prioritising the key ideas of a text, responding to the ideas of a text with your own ideas, and using the ideas of others to generate further ideas, questions, and dialogue. For Assignment 1, you have a choice of two texts to write about: • Sylvia Nissen’s “Dividing a generation? New Zealand university students’ perspectives on debt”1 or • Paul Kirschner’s “Stop Propagating the Learning Styles Myth”2 Both are reprinted later in this document, or you can find the online versions of the articles by following the links in the Week 1 section of the Stream site. Starting to read like a writer Both of these are “academic” texts published in peer-reviewed research journals, with one written by an advanced PhD student in New Zealand and the other by a distinguished professor at a university in the Netherlands.3 While these articles are hardly informal in their tone and style, both are slightly less formal than some forms of academic writing. Each employs a number of credible research sources in building a discussion, supporting main points, and building towards a conclusion. When you read Nissen and Kirschner, you might immediately notice that both articles: • are longer than most newspaper, general magazine, or website articles; • engage in a “conversation” with previous researchers through specific references to other publications noted directly within their sentences (rather than just noting the names of researchers or the titles of reports readers are not generally expected to check out themselves – one of these even provides partly “embedded” links, so you can access its citations directly via Massey’s Library databases); • employ a clear organisational structure (in academic articles, different sections are often labelled, though this can depend on the journal and the specific academic subject area, or “discipline,” involved); • offer their ideas via a range of sentence structures (with a mix of compound/complex constructions); and • provide, fairly early in their organisation, references from other research in their field, and gradually work towards their authors’ independent conclusions. 1 Nissen, S. (2015). Dividing a generation? New Zealand university students' perspectives on debt. New Zealand Sociology, 30(4), 176-189. 2 Kirschner, P.A. (2017). Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Computers & Education, 106(March) 166-171. 2 Kirschner, P.A. (2017). Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Computers & Education, 106(March) 166-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.006. 3 Note that both articles have been excerpted – that is, parts have been edited out in order to allow us to focus on their most important ideas, evidence, and discussion. If you would like to read the complete articles, just click on the supplied links in Stream or, if reading this document in electronic form, their titles in the footnotes above.W1 2 These are some of the features and qualities of academic writing that we’re helping you develop or advance in this course. In particular, we will be teaching you to: • write paragraphs that offer more support and elaboration of each main idea presented; • summarise and cite other texts in your own prose; and • take the time to develop and organise your ideas, indicating to the reader the logic of their sequence. These sorts of structures and qualities are intended to designed to help you engage with an academic reader who is already interested in the writing and inclined to give it some focused attention, and who would like to read a detailed discussion. For example, you will notice that each text poses a complex question or problem, complicates (or, in Kirschner’s case, stands in opposition to) existing understanding of the topic, and takes us through multiple ideas before coming to a conclusion. In academic writing, often that conclusion remains partly hesitant or questioning, as in the case of Nissen’s closing paragraph, and may note a need for further research into one or more aspects of the discussion or concluding points. In other written arguments, such as Kirschner’s here, concluding statements may be direct and unqualified, even when arguing against what may be widely accepted practices. These writers are also careful to use precise terms and to provide examples. These are all qualities you might aspire to in your academic writing for this course and for others. As you read these texts, then, work to consider how the style and approach of the writing is different to that of texts you’re used to reading. (Don’t worry if this seems tricky at first, though – we’ll be practising this kind of work as we encounter new reading and writing materials throughout this course). Attending to these kinds of similarities and differences is a good way to start “reading like a writer” – reading with attention to how a text is put together, to glean strategies you might use yourself, and, of course, to be a thoughtful and informed reader. Starting to read in conversation with the author For this assignment, we are interested in seeing what you make of these texts. In doing that, we are looking for you to engage in some key academic writing practices that can be seen in these initial readings: summarising and paraphrasing work from others, and then using additional or “new” evidence (for the first assignment, your own experience) as you participate in this research conversation. Note: it will help to look at the sample assignments in the A1 Assignment Guide on Stream so you can see how other students have approached this assignment task! For additional help in getting started, here is a brief introduction to the themes of Nissen and Kirschner to get you thinking before you start drafting. Both texts offer an important context (that is, a set of surrounding circumstances) for a university writing course. In “Dividing a generation? New Zealand university students’ perspectives on debt,” Nissen (a PhD student herself when this was written) explores issues connected with contemporary university student debt issues. To accomplish this, she first examines some of the financial statistics involved and a range of academic studies (all of which forms part of the secondary research background here – more on that later in the course). She also conducts her own primary research through interviews with 70 students across all eight NZ universities. In those interviews, she looks to move beyond the loan figures and governmental statistics to try and discover how NZ university students consider debt and borrowing in connection with their studies and their lives (and 80% currently have some debt in this area, though amounts vary). W1 3 Nissen also examines the perceived effects of such debt on students, and how it influences their approaches to university studies. For example, she notes how the university experience can be diminished or made more stressful and anxious by those with higher student debt levels, and how the different ways some students try and reduce that debt can leave them feeling like “outsiders” to the university community. The analysis of her interviews with students leads to findings about five “clusters” regarding student debt. Yet those groupings are also complicated by variations in individual student experiences. As with many academic research articles, the work involved produces some helpful new knowledge – yet that knowledge, in turn, generates new questions and pathways needing further exploration. ! If you choose to write in response to Nissen’s text, you might consider how your university funding (i.e., how you pay for your studies) connects to one or more of the issues that Nissen or her interviewees discuss. Alternatively, you may want to consider how your experiences differ from those noted in this article; how your experiences (or those of close family members) reflect what is discussed here; or how the different “clusters” that Nissen presents can be seen with in connection to (or contrast with) the debt situations of you, your family members, or your friends. Consider, too, the “particular divides” that Nissen notes in her conclusion and what they mean for the experience and community of the university. While Nissen’s article connects to us in its discussion of how students pay for their studies at uni and some of the indirect costs involved, Kirschner’s “Stop Propagating the Learning Styles Myth” concerns the ways in which we learn. Kirschner is continuing research he has previously explored. Academic research often involves various blends of inquiry and argument. Nissen’s article leans more towards inquiry and a process of developing new knowledge in a focused area. Kirschner, however, is more clearly engaging in academic argument, linking together a wide range of extensive research studies as he moves to refute the widespread but unfounded range of “beliefs” in “learning styles.” His article clarifies the merits of some previous research, and exposes the gaps and problems presented by other work that has been presented as support for “learning styles.” Many his word choices and phrases are direct and challenging (e.g., “myths” and “urban legends of education,” a quote from his tweet on “learning styles bull!,” “no real scientific evidence,” “highly dubious,” And the list of research showing that the learning styles emperor has no clothing is exhausting”). Yet his conclusion is also partly conciliatory, as he asks that his readers join with him in rejecting “learning styles” in order to serve the broader communities of education, science, and “the population at large.” ! If you choose to write in response to Kirschner’s text, you might consider how your studies at university connect to one or more of the issues that he discusses. What examples from your university studies, or your experience of them, would allow you to explore these issues further? You may have come across the idea of “learning styles” before (e.g., you might consider yourself a “visual learner”) – so what do the ideas from this article mean with regard to your current and future study practices? One of Kirschner’s research-based claims is that people who “preferred a particular way of learning” not only didn’t learn any better, but actually learned less and “even performed worse when it was used.” What are some of the implications of that claim with respect to our own processes of learning, especially learning something quite new or difficult? Whichever text you choose to respond to, consider how its terms and concepts can help you rethink or reflect on your own experience – and also how your experience can add to, challenge, or complicate the ideas of the author. This back-and-forth will help you draft a rich response.W1 4 Reference: Nissen, S. (2015). Dividing a generation? New Zealand university students' perspectives on debt. New Zealand Sociology, 30(4), 176-189. Sylvia Nissen’s “Dividing a generation? New Zealand university students’ perspectives on debt” [excerpted] Introduction There are few visible signs of student debt on campuses around New Zealand. Debt is rarely talked about among students, few student groups take it up as a campaign issue, and student associations rarely challenge it. Yet the scale of student debt in New Zealand is unprecedented. Four out of five domestic New Zealand students have student debt. The average debt that those students graduated with in 2014 was $20,000, up from $11,000 in 1998. Around 3% of borrowers, or 11,500 students, have debt greater than $80,000. The total student debt in New Zealand has increased 87% since 2005 from $7.5 billion to $14.2 billion in 2014 (Ministry of Education, 2014). In addition to their debt to the government, 25% of students have at least one overdraft and 28% have credit card debt (NZUSA, 2015)…. The study: Understanding students’ perspectives of debt This article reports on in-depth interviews with 70 students from all of New Zealand’s eight universities1. Interviews lasted from around 30 minutes to one hour and were conducted face-toface in late 2014 to mid-2015…. The final sample is representative of the national student population in terms of university attended, socio-economic demographics, subjects studied, and political party preference…. In particular, 81% of student respondents had student debt, which closely reflects the national proportion of 82%. Respondents had a higher average level of debt of $32,000 than the national average of $20,000…. Findings One of the most striking features of initial discussion with students about debt was how laid-back they appeared towards their loans. At the start of every interview, I asked participants to fill out a short questionnaire, which included a question about the amount of debt they owed. Nearly a third of the students with debt indicated as they wrote the number down that it was a bit of a guess. One student, Mary [all names are pseudonyms] (Auckland), wrote that her loan was ‘$50,000- $80,000ish?’ Four students had no idea of the approximate value of their loan and simply wrote question markets. Around a fifth of students interviewed with loans described their debt as an annual envelope from Inland Revenue that generally remained unopened. As discussion progressed, this laid-back attitude gave way to a much more complex set of student experiences. Students were generally very aware of differences among students in how they experienced debt. Nearly a third of respondents spontaneously used words like ‘gap’, ‘divide’ and ‘difference’ when asked how debt affected them and their friends. It was also striking that only a quarter of students interviewed used the collective ‘we’ or ‘us’ to describe their situation in relation to their peers. By contrast, the remaining three quarters of students used a language of ‘me’ and ‘them’, distancing themselves as individuals instead of suggesting a shared experience. In this section, I identify five clusters of student perspectives towards debt. The first two groups – the lucky students (25% respondents) and pragmatists (15%) – generally had lower levels of debt, while investors (15%), deliberate deferrers (35%), and strugglers (10%) had higher levels of debt….W1 5 The ‘lucky’ students Around a quarter of students interviewed, usually with no debt or relatively minimal debt, described themselves as ‘lucky’. Many of these students had high levels of family support or were on scholarships. Without prompting, these students described their circumstances as a matter of ‘luck’, ‘fortune’, or ‘chance’. These statements were typical of ‘lucky’ students: I’ve been really lucky in that my dad has been able to support me throughout my degree week to week ... so I’m really fortunate (Margot, Victoria). Personally I’ve been quite lucky because my first three years were done with a scholarship so I’ve just started borrowing for fees this year (Trevor, Auckland). Of the students interviewed, lucky students were the most reluctant to talk about debt, with many speaking about their ‘luck’ in an almost embarrassed manner as something ‘not deserved’. Six students volunteered that they did not usually talk about debt with their peers because they felt ‘guilty’ about their ‘privileged’ status…. Pragmatists A second group of students with low levels of debt were pragmatists, who made up around 15% of respondents. Although these students shared many characteristics with lucky students in that they often had some external (usually family) financial support, they spoke about debt as something that needed to be ‘managed’ and ‘controlled’. Pragmatists had proactively developed careful ‘plans’ and ‘strategies’ to either have no debt or to minimise it, usually through a combination of staying at home (6 respondents), working long hours (5), establishing a ‘business venture’ (2), or buying property (1)…. These extracts illustrate pragmatists’ attitudes towards their debt: I know I can pay it off. I have planned carefully (Rose, Waikato). It is something that I’ve already started to deal with now. So I’ve already started taking action so that when I am out of the system I’m going to be right on track (Adam, Victoria). Nearly all of the older students interviewed who had returned to study after work were pragmatists, spontaneously describing calculations about the amount of debt they took on and how long that would take to pay off once employed. The younger students who adopted these approaches nearly all volunteered that they had done so as a result of encouragement by family members…. [S]tudents spoke about the trade-offs that came with the decision to stay at home or move back home to reduce debt [to include] problems of feeling ‘like an outsider’ when they came to university to attend lectures because other students already had developed friendship groups made in halls or flats…. Investors Among students with higher levels of debt, the most relaxed about their loans were investors. Comprising 15% of respondents, these students were confident in their ability to ‘deal’ with their debt as a result of perceived high incomes once they graduated. Almost all investors were male. These statements illustrate their confidence:W1 6 I just know that it is something that I have and I can pay it off as I go ... I’m not worried because I am not in a market that is saturated, I’m in a market where there is demand (Nerina, Victoria). I’m looking at $50,000 of debt and rising, but I’m not too bothered by it. It’ll be worth it because people in my area get decent jobs (Luke, Canterbury). Whether by chance or intent, these students had typically picked degrees that were understood to be in ‘high demand’ and promised ‘good salaries’. All but one of the investor respondents studied economics, commerce, management, or engineering…. Deliberate deferrers The most numerous group of students with high levels of debt were deliberate deferrers, which made up 35% of respondents. Initially, these students spoke about their debt quite casually, saying that debt did not affect them at the moment, but it would probably impact them later on when they went to get a job (10 respondents), go overseas (8), or buy a house (7). Many were matter of fact about the consequences: ‘it will probably be bad, but I will deal with it then’ (Felicity, Otago). At the same time, there were many indicators that debt was an uncomfortable subject for deliberate deferrers. When asked about how debt had affected them, nearly all of these students winced or described the amount they owed in terms of it being ‘painful’, ‘eye-watering’, ‘scary’, ‘crazy’, and something that ‘is kind of terrifying for me because it is going to be there waiting for me at the end’ (Nicola, Victoria)…. Strugglers The final group of high-debt students were strugglers, who made up around 10% of participants. Strugglers closely shared the attitudes of deliberate deferrers towards their debt, particularly the constant ‘worry’ that came with high levels of debt: ‘it eats away at you’ (Beatrice, Auckland), ‘dealing with that shit ... takes its toll on your mental and physical wellbeing’ (Sue, Canterbury). However, unlike deliberate deferrers, these students typically had minimal to no financial support from external sources, such as family, scholarships, or student allowance. Debt for these students was crucial element of their lives, as they described having to ‘self-fund’ all of their fees and course related costs on top of basic weekly expenses: rent and associated bills, food, and transport. All but one of the strugglers in this sample were from Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, where costs of rent and other living expenses were considered particularly high, making student loans ‘not enough’. This account from Beatrice (Auckland) illustrates this ‘struggle’: My rent is way above what you can get in living costs so I’ m basically working week-to-week to get enough money just to pay the rent, let alone, you know, enough money for food to eat and stuff. And I can’t get anywhere cheaper because it’s, like, Auckland. So, yep, it is a struggle. Part-time work was essential for these students: ‘it’s not a choice’ (Mahe, Canterbury). While the average hours worked during term-time for the sample as a whole was 16 hours, strugglers worked an average of 25 hours per week. Among strugglers, nearly three quarters spontaneously reported consequences of this work on their academic achievement: ‘my grades have taken a fair hit’ (Laura, AUT). Because of the high level of time spent outside of campus, four strugglers also described feeling like they did not ‘fit in’ on campus because they did not have the time or resources to participate fully in campus life.W1 7 Discussion: Dividing a generation? …[C]onsistent with Davies & Lea (1995) and Harrison et al (2015), the findings of this research suggest students’ perceptions of their debt may cause further fractures among students that are just as profound as their loan balance. In this discussion, I draw attention to four of these divides. First, the interviews suggest that having similarly large loan balances does not necessarily form the basis for a shared experience among students…. These differences in perception suggest that patterns of vulnerability and risk associated with debt are unevenly experienced within the student body. In particular, consistent with research by Dwyer et al (2011), the respondents in this study indicated that problems with students’ mental health and wellbeing were disproportionately experienced by students with high levels of debt and little sense of future security (see also Drentea, 2000). Second, students in this study attributed the various experiences of debt among students to very different sources. On the one hand, lucky students, in particular, tended to prescribe low levels of debt to a matter of chance and good fortune. By contrast, pragmatists and to a lesser extent investors were more likely to attribute low levels of debt to individual hard work and good choices in terms of spending patterns or degree choice…. Third, the participants in this study described significantly different capacities to shape their experience of debt. Because of low levels of external support, strugglers, in particular, had very little flexibility in the amount of loan they could take out or how they spent that loan as nearly all funds went towards covering basic living expenses…. In addition, the concentration of financially vulnerable students in the main centres in this sample suggests that current student loan policy does not adequately take into account regional differences. Finally, the respondents in this study described varying ability to participate fully in campus life as a result of debt, both academically and socially. For deliberate deferrers, in particular, high levels of debt in addition to external support enabled them to be highly active on campus and these students generally lived comfortable and rewarding lives. However, in common with Christie and Munro (2003), many of the students in this sample did so at the risk of future hardship and uncertainty, and reported high levels of stress and worry. By contrast, strugglers and pragmatists described debt as something that restricted, rather than enabled, their involvement in university, often as a result of high levels of part-time work…. Conclusion [I]t is concerning that young people are increasingly required to borrow significant amounts against an uncertain future, bringing into question the priorities and funding of higher education in New Zealand. [T]he rapid rise in student debt over the past two decades is not an accident nor the misjudgement of individuals. Rather, expanded access to loans has increasingly shifted costs onto students and encouraged greater indebtedness, with the outcomes of these changes on a generation largely unknown – economically but also socially and politically. Even if these loans are interestfree and some students are confident about ‘dealing’ with their debt, there are strong reasons for caution. As student debt continues to grow, the particular divides that student loans create within and between generations are not likely to go away. Footnote 1This research was approved by the University of Canterbury Human Ethics Committee (HEC 2014/80)W1 8 References Altbach, P.G., Reisberg, L,, & Rumbley, L.E. (2009). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution. Paris, France: UNESCO. Callender, C., & Jackson, J. (2008). Does the fear of debt constrain choice of university and subject of study? Studies in Higher Education 33(4): 405-429. Christie, H., & Munro, M. (2003). The logic of loans: Students’ perceptions of the costs and benefits of the student loan. British Journal of Sociology of Education 24(5): 621-636. Christie, H., Munro, M., & Rettig, H. (2010). Making ends meet: Student incomes and debt. Studies in Higher Education 26(3): 363-383. Davies, E., & Lea, S.E.G. (1995). Student attitudes to student debt. Journal of Economic Psychology 16: 663-679. Dean, A. (2015). Ruth, Roger and me: Debts and legacies. Wellington: Bridget Williams Books. Drentea, P. (2000). Age, debt and anxiety. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour 41(4): 437-450. Dwyer, R.E., McCloud, L., & Hodson, R. (2011). Youth debt, mastery, and self-esteem: Class-stratified effects of indebtedness on self-concept. Social Science Research 40: 727-741. Engler, R. (2014). Was it worth it? Do low-income New Zealand student loan borrowers increase their income after studying for a tertiary qualification? Wellington: Ministry of Education. Harrison, N., Chudry, F., Waller, R., & Hatt, S. (2015). Towards a typology of debt attitudes among contemporary young UK graduates. Journal of Further and Higher Education 39(1): 85-107. Haultain, S., Kemp, S., & Chernyshenko, O.S. (2010). The structure of attitudes to student debt. Journal of Economic Psychology 31: 322-330. Jackson, B.A., & Reynolds, J.R. (2013). The price of opportunity: Race, student loan debt and college achievement. Sociological Inquiry 83(3): 335-368. Johnstone, D.B., & Marcucci, P.N. (2010). Financing higher education worldwide: Who pays? Who should pay? Maryland, US: John Hopkins University Press. McLaughlin, M. (2003). Tertiary education policy in New Zealand. Retrieved 22 July 2015 from http://www.fulbright.org.nz.helicon.vuw.ac.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/axford2002_mclaughlin.pdf Ministry of Education. (2014). Student loan scheme annual report 2014. Wellington, NZ. Moayyed, M. (2015) Getting by on a student budget. The Wireless, 6 July. Retrieved 9 September 2015 from http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/getting-by-on-a-student-budget Nairn, K., Higgins, J., & Sligo, J. (2012). Children of Rogernomics: A neoliberal generation leaves school. Dunedin: Otago University Press. NZUSA. (2015). Income and expenditure survey 2014. Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations. Robotham, D. (2012). Student part-time employment: Characteristics and consequences, Education & Training 54(1): 65-75. Rothstein, J., & Rouse, C.E. (2011). Constrained after college: Student loans and early-career occupation choices. Journal of Public Economics 95: 149-163. White, J. (2013). Squeezing our students? The student finance burden: An English and OECD comparison. London: The Intergenerational Foundation. Author Affiliation Sylvia Nissen is a PhD candidate at the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand. The winner of the 2013 Kate Sheppard Award, her doctoral research examines how a new generation of New Zealand university students understand and express political agency. She is also a Research Assistant with the SEED Youth Research Group at the University of Canterbury. Copyright Sociological Association of Aotearoa New Zealand 2015W1 9 Reference: Kirschner, P.A. (2017). Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Computers & Education, 106(March), 166-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.006. Paul A. Kirschner’s “Stop Propagating the Learning Styles Myth” [excerpted] “No amount of belief makes something a fact” – James Randi “Every man has a right to his own opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts” – Bernard Baruch1 …In 2013, I published an article in Educational Psychologist with my good friend and colleague Jeroen van Merriënboer entitled “Do learners really know best? Urban legends in education”. In this article we discussed a number of urban legends which permeate teaching and education such as learning styles, the digital native, multitasking, the learning pyramid, and so forth…. The gist of my criticism of learning styles is that there is no real scientific basis for the proposition (actually it should be relegated to the realm of beliefs) that (1) a learner actually has a certain optimal learning style, (2) (s)he is aware of what that personal learning style is and/or there is a reliable and valid way to determine this style, and (3) optimal learning and instruction entails first determining this learning style and then aligning instruction accordingly. The assumption that lies at the basis of learning styles is that teachers, trainers, instructional designers, instructional developers, etcetera should take the learning style that (1) learners say that they have or (2) any of a number of specific instruments (e.g., learning styles inventories) determine the learner to have into account when designing, developing, and delivering instruction. If this is done, will it be possible to optimally facilitate learning and allow the learner to fully develop her- /himself and achieve optimal learning outcomes. While this idea seems intuitively appealing and sounds as if it has a certain degree of face validity, there are fundamental difficulties in both diagnosing learning styles and aligning instruction to these styles…. In our article (Kirschner & van Merriënboer, 2013) we first posited that learning styles poorly classify (actually pigeon-hole) learners. Most of the styles that have been ‘determined’ are based on types; the learner is not assigned to a style based on a set of scores on different dimensions, but rather is classified into a specific – often exclusive – group (see Cassidy, 2004 ; Coffield et al., 2004 for an overview of learning styles)…. As to the number of pigeon-holes that have been created, Coffield et al. (2004) write that “the sheer number of dichotomies in the literature conveys something of the current conceptual confusion” (p. 136). In their review, they refer to 30 different dichotomous learning styles in the literature2 (see Table 1). Table 1. 30 Learning Styles discussed in Coffield et al. (2004). • convergers vs. divergers • verbalisers vs. imagers • holists vs. serialists • deep vs. surface learning • activists vs. reflectors • pragmatists vs. theorists • adaptors vs. innovators • assimilators vs. explorers • field dependent vs. field independent • intuitionists vs. analysts • extroverts vs. introverts • sensing vs. intuition • thinking vs. feeling • judging vs. perceiving • left brainers vs. right brainers • meaning-directed vs. undirected • theorists vs. humanitarians • activists vs. theoristsW1 10 • globalists vs. analysts • assimilators vs. accommodators • imaginative vs. analytic learners • non-committers vs. plungers • common-sense vs. dynamic learners • concrete vs. abstract learners • random vs. sequential learners • initiators vs. reasoners • pragmatists vs. reflectors • organisers vs. innovators • lefts/analytics/inductives/successive processors vs. rights/globals/deductives/simultaneous processors • executive, hierarchic, conservative vs. legislative, anarchic, liberal The second problem has to do with the validity, reliability and predictive powers of the learning styles tests being used. Stahl (1999) reported inconsistencies and low reliabilities for the measurement of learning styles; when individuals complete a particular measurement at two different points in time. In other words, the test-retest reliability is quite low. This is also related to the information often used to assess learning styles. The most often used method is self-report. Unfortunately, the adequacy of self-report for assessing a learning style is highly dubious (see, for example, Veenman, Prins, & Verheij, 2003). The reason for this is that learners are either not able and/or not willing to truthfully report what they do or what they think that they do. To illustrate the unreliability of self-report, Rawson, Stahovich, and Mayer (2016) asked students when they did their homework and how long they worked on it. They also gave these students a ‘smartpen’ which noted when and how long they worked on their homework. While there was a significant positive correlation between the amount of time students’ spent on their homework and the students’ course grade as measured by the smartpen (r = 0.44), there was no significant correlation between the course grade and time spent on homework as reported by the students (r = −0.16). In other words, there was no real correlation between subjective self-report and objective measurement. Also, nearly all students greatly over-reported their homework time (88% of the students). Finally, Massa and Mayer (2006) found that when students reported their preference for verbal information as opposed to visual information, this preference was only weakly related to their actual abilities when they were objectively measured (i.e., their spatial ability). Also, the self-reported preferred way of learning is often a bad predictor of the way people learn most effectively; what people prefer is not, per definition, what is best for them. Knoll, Otani, Skeel and Van Horn (2016) conclude learning styles are associated with subjective aspects of learning but not objective aspects of learning. In other words, the question arises as to whether learners actually “know” what is best for them. Clark (1982) published a watershed meta-analysis with respect to learner preference for choosing a certain type of instruction and found that the reported preference was most often – at best – not correlated to what and how much was learnt or was actually negatively correlated. In other words, those learners who said that they preferred a particular way of learning typically did not learn better or actually even performed worse when it was used. He termed the latter mathemathantic 3 (from the Greek roots mathema = a study where something is learned + thanatos = death); that is, an instructional method that on the one hand matches the way that the learner say to prefer for learning but which is unproductive or harmful to her/his learning ( Clark, 1989)…. [L]et’s disregard all of the difficulties just discussed in relation to measuring and determining learning styles, and then ask how should we tailor instruction to the preferred or determined learning styles. Here, the learning-styles hypothesis ( Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, & Bjork, 2009) is important, namely that a crossover interaction (see Fig. 1) will be found in which a specific type of learner learns significantly better with an instructional method tailored to her/his learning style, whereas a different specific type of learner (i.e., a learner with an opposing learning style) learnsW1 11 better with an instructional method tailored to her/him…. For example, according to this hypothesis, verbal learners will learn best when they are taught through verbal instructional methods (e.g., when they are given a book or an article to read), but perform miserably when given a video to watch. In contrast, visual learners will learn best when they are taught through visual instructional methods (e.g., when they are asked to watch a video), but perform miserably when given a book to read…. Unfortunately for the adherents of learning styles, this is not the case (see Coffield et al., 2004; Pashler et al., 2009 ; Rohrer and Pashler, 2012). Pashler et al. (2009, p. 105) conclude that “at present, there is no adequate evidence base to justify incorporating learningstyles assessments into general educational practice. Thus, limited education resources would better be devoted to adopting other educational practices that have a strong evidence base, of which there are an increasing number”…. Constantidinou and Baker (2002), for example, found no relation between having a purported visual learning style and the learning of verbal items either presented in a visual or an auditory way. Massa and Mayer (2006) also found nothing to support the idea that different instructional methods, emphasising either pictorial or verbal information, were of benefit – in a crossover manner – to visualizers and verbalizers respectively. Similar negative results are have been found for other learning styles…. Finally, Rogowksy, Calhoun, and Tallal (2015) found no statistically significant relationship between the preference for a particular learning style (i.e., auditory, visual word) and learning (i.e., listening comprehension, reading comprehension). And the list of research showing that the learning styles emperor has no clothing is exhausting. What follows are two interesting quotes from the large corpus of learning styles research: From Morrison, Ross, Kalman, and Kemp (2011, p. 59) “Despite the extensive literature on learning styles, questions remain regarding the degree to which such styles can be matched to teaching methods with any benefits to learning (Knight et al., 1992; Park and Lee, 2004 ; Snow, 1992). “ From Dembo and Howard (2007, p. 107) “… learning style instruments have not been shown to be valid and reliable, there is no benefit to matching instruction to preferred learning style, and there is no evidence that understanding one’s learning style improves learning and its related outcomes…We urge instructors to reconsider their instructional practices, especially the advice they give students about learning styles, and base their practices on sound research”…. On another note, Coffield et al. (2004) state that the concept of learning styles is so ill defined that it is effectively useless for instruction…. To this I can only add that if and when teachers say that they have proof that using learning styles works, the ‘proof’ that they give is primarily anecdotal. According to Rosenthal and Jacobson (1992) what they see and/or experience, is most probably because when teachers expect enhanced performance from their students, the performance is enhanced. This is known as the Pygmalion or the Rosenthal effect where higher expectations lead to an increase in performance. Rosenthal argues that such biased expectancies affect reality and create self-fulfilling prophecies. Related to this, Reiner and Willingham (2010) state: … learning-styles theory has succeeded in becoming “common knowledge.” Its widespread acceptance serves as an unfortunately compelling reason to believe it. This is accompanied by a well-known cognitive phenomenon called the confirmation bias. When evaluating our own beliefs, we tend to seek out information that confirms our beliefs and ignore contrary information, even when we encounter it repeatedly. When we see someone who professes to be a visual learner excel at geography and an auditory learner excel at music, we do not seek out the information which would disprove our interpretation of these events… (np)W1 12 Newton (2015) found that the overwhelming majority (89%) of recent research papers – with the date range July 23, 2013 to July 23, 2015 – listed in the ERIC and PubMed research databases, implicitly or directly endorsing the use of learning styles in higher education. We want to urge ourselves as scientists to get our act together. Howard-Jones (2014), reporting on a study he conducted with Dekker, Lee, Howard-Jones, & Jolles 2012 found that 95% of teachers in Great Britain, The Netherlands, Turkey, Greece, and China held the belief that “[I]ndividuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred learning style (for example, visual, auditory or kinaesthetic).” We are progenitors and gatekeepers of new knowledge. What we study and/or publish can and should make an impact on both the scientific world in which we travel and the world of education which we serve. As such, it is our solemn duty to carry out research and report on good science – independent of positive significant results – and guard against the spreading of pseudoscience, myths, and outright lies. There is no benefit to be gained by adapting and designing education and instruction to these so-called styles. Actually, in line with the mathemathantic effects of preferred approaches to instruction, it may even be the case that if this is done, administrators, teachers, parents and even learners are negatively influencing the learning process and the products of education and instruction. With this in mind, I feel it necessary – and even our duty – as researchers and/or journal editors and reviewers not to propagate such myths. We must guard our credibility as researchers, as (the mouthpiece of) scientific communities and work to the benefit of those that we serve, namely the scientific community and the population at large, specifically educators and learners. References Berliner, D. C., & Cahen, L. S. (1973). Trait-treatment interaction and learning. In F. N. Kerlinger (Ed.), Vol. 1. Review of research in education (pp. 58e94). Itasca. IL: Peacock. Cassidy, S. (2004). Learning styles: An overview of theories, models, and measures. Educational Psychology, 24, 419e444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 0144341042000228834. Clark, R. E. (1982). Antagonism between achievement and enjoyment in ATI studies. Educational Psychologist, 17(2), 92e101. Clark, R. E. (1989). When teaching kills learning: Research on mathemathantics. In H. Mandl, N. Bennett, E. De Corte, & H. Friedrich (Eds.), Learning and Instruction: European Research in an International Context (Vol. 2, pp. 1e22). London, UK: Pergamon. Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. London, UK: Learning and Skills Research Centre. Constantidinou, F., & Baker, S. (2002). Stimulus modality and verbal learning performance in normal aging. Brain and Language, 82, 296e311. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00018-4. Cook, D. A., Thompson, W. G., Thomas, K. G., & Thomas, M. R. (2009). Lack of interaction between sensingintuitive learning styles and problem-first versus information-first instruction: A randomized cross-over trial. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 14, 79e90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10459-007- 9089-8. Dekker, S., Lee, N. C., Howard-Jones, P. A., & Jolles, J. (2012). Neuromyths in education: Prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 429. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429. Dembo, M. H., & Howard, K. (2007). Advice about the use of learning styles: A major myth in education. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 37(2), 101e109. Druckman, D., & Porter, L. W. (1991). Developing careers. In D. Druckman, & R. A. Bjork (Eds.), In the mind's eye: Enhancing human performance (pp. 80e103). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Howard-Jones, P. A. (2014). Neuroscience and education: Myths and messages. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15, 817e824. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ nrn3817.W1 13 Kirschner, P. A., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2013). Do learners really know best? Urban legends in education. € Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 169e183. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.804395. Knight, C. B., Halpin, G., & Halpin, G.. (1992). The effects of learning environment accommodations on the achievement of second graders. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Knoll, A. R., Otani, H., Skeel, R. L., & Van Horn, K. R. (2016). Learning style, judgements of learning, and learning of verbal and visual information. British Journal of Psychology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12214. Massa, L. J., & Mayer, R. E. (2006). Testing the ATI hypothesis: Should multimedia instruction accommodate verbalizer-visualizer cognitive style? Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 321e336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2006.10.001. Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kalman, H. K., & Kemp, J. E. (2011). In Designing effective instruction (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Newton, P. M. (2015). The learning styles myth is thriving in higher education. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1908. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01908. Park, O., & Lee, J. (2004). Adaptive instructional systems. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 651e684). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2009). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105e119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j. 1539-6053.2009.01038.x. Prashnig, B. (2005, Autumn). Learning styles vs. multiple intelligences (MI): Two concepts for enhancing learning and teaching (Vol. 9, pp. 8e9). expertise, com. Retrieved from: www.teacher http://www.creativelearningcentre.com/downloads/LS%20vs%20MI%20TEX9_p8_9.pdf. Rawson, Stahovich, & Mayer. (2016). Homework and achievement: Using smartpen technology to find the connection. Journal of Educational Psychology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000130 (in press). Reiner, C., & Willingham, D. (2010). The myth of learning styles. Change Magazine (Sept-Oct.). Rogowsky, B. A., Calhoun, B. M., & Tallal, P. (2015). Matching learning style to instructional method: Effects on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 64e78. Rogowksy, B. A., Calhoun, B. M., & Tallal, P. (2015). Matching learning style to instructional method: Effects on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(1), 64e78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037478. Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2012). Learning styles: Where's the evidence? Medical Education, 46, 630e635. Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1992). Pygmalion in the classroom. New York, NY: Irvington. Rothkopf, E. Z. (1970). The concept of mathemagenic activities. Review of Educational Research, 40, 325e336. Salomon, G. (1971). Heuristic models for the generation of aptitude-treatment interaction hypotheses. Review of Educational Research, 2, 327e343. Snow, R. E. (1992). Aptitude theory: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Educational Psychologist, 27, 5e32. Stahl, S. A. (1999). Different strokes for different folks? A critique of learning styles. American Educator, 23(3), 27e31. Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (1990). Instructional strategies for teaching computer programming: Interactions with the cognitive style re € flection-impulsivity. Journal of Research in Computing Education, 23, 45e53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08886504.1990.10781942. Veenman, M. V. J., Prins, F. J., & Verheij, J. (2003). Learning styles: Self-reports versus thinking-aloud measures. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 357e372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709903322275885. Wheeler, S. (November, 2011). A convenient untruth. Learning with ‘e’s [blog]. Retrieved from http://stevewheeler.blogspot.ca/2011/11/convenient-untruth. html. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.