Annotated Bibliography Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in London: Learning and Skills post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. Development Agency. The authors of this book perform a systematic review of learning styles models and explore a significant body of research to understand the value of learning styles, if any. the apparently unproblematic appeal of learning styles lies a host of “… Beneath conceptual and empirical problems. Space to begin with, the learning styles field is not unified, but instead is divided into three linked areas of activity: theoretical, pedagogy and The Learning and Skills Development Agency (LSDA) commissioned commercial.” a number of research projects to understand and evaluate the use of learning style inventories on higher education. A large section of the book is dedicated to comparing and contrasting supporters and critics of learning styles and the rationales for and against using them. Their conclusion is that this is problematic, and that learning style research does not provide any clear direction for higher education or pedagogy. Instead the commercialization of learning style instruments, videotapes, publications, etc. simply create fiscal incentives to encourage the proliferation of learning styles, but do not provide for a comprehensive and unified means of assessing learning styles, nor of administering, completing, scoring, and evaluating learning style instruments. They call into question the reliability and validity of the data supporting the study of learning styles and question the use of learning style evaluation as a useful practice.
Annotated Bibliography Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Development Agency. The authors of this book perform a systematic review of learning styles models and explore a significant body of research to understand the value of learning styles, if any. “… Beneath the apparently unproblematic appeal of learning styles lies a host of conceptual and empirical problems. Space to begin with, the learning styles field is not unified, but instead is divided into three linked areas of activity: theoretical, pedagogy and commercial.” The Learning and Skills Development Agency (LSDA) commissioned a number of research projects to understand and evaluate the use of learning style inventories on higher education. A large section of the book is dedicated to comparing and contrasting supporters and critics of learning styles and the rationales for and against using them. Their conclusion is that this is problematic, and that learning style research does not provide any clear direction for higher education or pedagogy. Instead the commercialization of learning style instruments, videotapes, publications, etc. simply create fiscal incentives to encourage the proliferation of learning styles, but do not provide for a comprehensive and unified means of assessing learning styles, nor of administering, completing, scoring, and evaluating learning style instruments. They call into question the reliability and validity of the data supporting the study of learning styles and question the use of learning style evaluation as a useful practice.