Division of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Mayo 17, 200 First St., SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Acad Med. 2012 Jun;87(6):778-84. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182541286.
In a previous systematic review, the author proposed that adaptation to learners' cognitive and learning styles (CLSs) could improve the efficiency of computer-assisted instruction (CAI). In the present article, he questions that proposition, arguing that CLSs do not make a substantive difference in CAI. To support this argument, the author performed an updated systematic literature search, pooled new findings with those from the previous review, and reinterpreted this evidence with a focus on aptitude-treatment interactions. (An aptitude-treatment interaction occurs when a student with attribute 1 learns better with instructional approach A than with approach B, whereas a student with attribute 2 learns better with instructional approach B).Of 65 analyses reported in 48 studies, only 9 analyses (14%) showed significant interactions between CLS and instructional approach. It seems that aptitude-treatment interactions with CLSs are at best infrequent and small in magnitude. There are several possible explanations for this lack of effect. First, the influence of strong instructional methods likely dominates the impact of CLSs. Second, current methods for assessing CLSs lack validity evidence and are inadequate to accurately characterize the individual learner. Third, theories are vague, and empiric evidence is virtually nonexistent to guide the planning of style-targeted instructional designs. Adaptation to learners' CLSs thus seems unlikely to enhance CAI. The author recommends that educators focus on employing strong instructional methods. Educators might also consider assessing and adapting to learners' prior knowledge or allowing learners to select among alternate instructional approaches.
在之前的系统综述中，作者提出，适应学习者的认知和学习风格（CLS）可以提高计算机辅助教学（CAI）的效率。在本文中，作者对这一观点提出质疑，认为 CLS 并不会对 CAI 产生实质性的影响。为了支持这一论点，作者进行了一次更新的系统文献检索，将新的发现与之前的综述中的发现进行了汇总，并通过关注能力-处理相互作用，重新解释了这些证据。（当具有属性 1 的学生使用教学方法 A 比方法 B 学习效果更好，而具有属性 2 的学生使用教学方法 B 比方法 A 学习效果更好时，就会发生能力-处理相互作用）。在 48 项研究中报告的 65 项分析中，只有 9 项分析（14%）显示了 CLS 和教学方法之间的显著相互作用。似乎与 CLS 相关的能力-处理相互作用最多只是偶尔出现，而且作用很小。对于这种缺乏效果的现象，可能有几个解释。首先，强大的教学方法的影响可能会主导 CLS 的影响。其次，目前用于评估 CLS 的方法缺乏有效性证据，并且不足以准确地描述个体学习者。第三，理论较为模糊，实证证据几乎不存在，无法指导针对风格的教学设计的规划。因此，适应学习者的 CLS 似乎不太可能增强 CAI。作者建议教育者专注于使用强大的教学方法。教育者还可以考虑评估和适应学习者的先验知识，或者允许学习者在不同的教学方法之间进行选择。
