Further Reading — Chapter 8

The Learning Myths That Won't Die: Learning Styles, Rereading, Highlighting, and Other Expensive Placebos

This annotated bibliography provides resources for deeper exploration of the concepts introduced in Chapter 8. Sources are organized by tier following this textbook's citation honesty system.

Tier 1 — Verified Sources

These are well-known, widely available works that the authors are confident exist with the details provided.

Research Articles

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). "Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence." Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105-119.

This is the landmark review that Chapter 8 relies on most heavily. Published in the same high-profile journal that later hosted the Dunlosky meta-analysis, this paper examines the entire body of learning styles research and asks a simple question: Is there credible evidence that matching instructional format to a student's self-identified learning style improves learning? The answer, after a thorough and methodologically rigorous review, is no. The paper is remarkable not just for its conclusion but for its clarity in explaining what a proper test of the meshing hypothesis would look like and why most existing studies fail to meet that standard. Written accessibly enough for advanced undergraduates. If you read one primary source from this chapter, make it this one.

Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). "Improving Students' Learning with Effective Learning Techniques: Promising Directions from Cognitive and Educational Psychology." Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4-58.

You encountered this paper extensively in Chapter 7. Its relevance to Chapter 8 is its evaluation of rereading (low utility) and highlighting/underlining (low utility). The paper's treatment of these strategies is thorough, examining the evidence across different learning contexts, age groups, and outcome measures. The conclusion is consistent: rereading and highlighting provide minimal benefit compared to retrieval practice, spacing, and other high-utility strategies. The rereading and highlighting sections are particularly worth reading for the detail they provide on why these strategies fail — specifically, the role of processing depth and the absence of retrieval.

Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). "Test-Enhanced Learning: Taking Memory Tests Improves Long-Term Retention." Psychological Science, 17(3), 249-255.

While primarily a retrieval practice study (covered in Chapter 7), this paper is also one of the strongest demonstrations of rereading's limitations. The direct comparison — students who restudied four times versus students who studied once and tested three times — shows the rereading illusion in its starkest form. After a short delay, the groups performed similarly (rereading looked fine). After a longer delay, the testing group dramatically outperformed the rereading group. This paper demonstrates the central paradox: rereading felt productive in the short term but failed in the long term.

Books

Brown, P. C., Roediger, H. L., III, & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning. Harvard University Press.

Chapter 7's most important companion is equally relevant here. Make It Stick devotes substantial attention to debunking learning myths — including learning styles, rereading, and the belief that learning should be easy. The book's treatment of illusions of knowing (Chapter 5 of Make It Stick) aligns closely with this textbook's discussion of fluency illusions and the familiarity heuristic. Particularly relevant sections include the discussion of why students resist evidence-based strategies and the argument that "difficulties that are desirable" are the engine of effective learning.

Willingham, D. T. (2009). Why Don't Students Like School? A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions About How the Mind Works and What It Means for the Classroom. Jossey-Bass.

Daniel Willingham is one of the most effective communicators of cognitive science to educators. Chapter 7 of Why Don't Students Like School? is titled "What's the Secret to Getting Students to Think Like Experts?" — but the book's broader contribution is its clear-eyed debunking of popular education myths, including learning styles. Willingham's explanation of why people believe in learning styles despite the evidence is compassionate and thorough. He also addresses the myth that "drill kills" creativity, the oversimplification of "learning by doing," and other popular but unsupported claims.

Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). "Self-Regulated Learning: Beliefs, Techniques, and Illusions." Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417-444.

This review article covers the intersection of metacognition and learning strategy effectiveness. Its relevance to Chapter 8 is its discussion of why learners make poor strategy choices — specifically, the role of metacognitive illusions (fluency, familiarity, foresight bias) in sustaining ineffective strategies. This paper provides the theoretical backbone for this chapter's argument that myths persist because of specific, identifiable cognitive mechanisms.

Tier 2 — Attributed Sources

These are findings and claims attributed to specific researchers or research traditions. The general claims are well-established in the literature, but specific publication details beyond what is provided have not been independently verified for this bibliography.

Research by Husmann and O'Loughlin on learning styles in anatomy education.

A 2018 study that surveyed hundreds of anatomy students, identified their self-reported learning styles (using the VARK inventory), and tracked whether students who studied in their "preferred" style performed better on anatomy exams. The result: no significant relationship between style-matched studying and performance. Students who used effective strategies — regardless of whether those strategies matched their "style" — outperformed those who didn't. This study is notable because anatomy is a subject where many people believe visual learning should be especially advantageous (it involves physical structures), making the null result particularly striking.

Research by Callender and McDaniel on rereading effectiveness.

Studies demonstrating that the modest benefits of rereading disappear almost entirely when tests require application or transfer rather than simple recognition. When students must use information in a new context — not just recognize it — the advantage of having reread it is negligible. This finding is important because most meaningful assessments (and most real-world uses of knowledge) require application, not recognition.

Research by Rosen and colleagues on multitasking during learning.

Studies showing that even brief smartphone interruptions during encoding (such as receiving and reading text messages) significantly impair retention. The critical finding: students who experienced interruptions consistently underestimated the impact of those interruptions on their learning. They believed the interruptions were harmless. They were wrong. This disconnect between perceived and actual impact is another manifestation of the fluency illusion applied to study behaviors.

Carol Dweck's growth mindset research.

Dweck's research program, spanning several decades, established that beliefs about intelligence (fixed vs. growth) significantly influence learning behavior and outcomes. Students who believe intelligence is fixed ("I'm not a math person") are more likely to interpret difficulty as evidence of inability and disengage from challenging material. Students who believe intelligence is malleable are more likely to interpret difficulty as a normal part of the learning process and persist. While some aspects of the growth mindset literature have faced replication challenges, the core finding — that beliefs about ability influence engagement with difficulty — remains well-supported.

Research by Kornell and Bjork on metacognitive judgments and study strategy choices.

Research showing that students consistently rate massed practice (cramming) as more effective than distributed practice (spacing), even in experiments where distributed practice produces superior test performance. This work provides some of the strongest empirical evidence for the central paradox: learners' intuitive judgments about strategy effectiveness are systematically wrong. Related work shows similar biases favoring rereading over testing and blocked practice over interleaving.

Research on learning styles belief prevalence among educators.

Multiple surveys, conducted across different countries and education levels, consistently find that approximately 90% of teachers believe in learning styles. This statistic, while difficult to attribute to a single study, is widely reported in the literature and was cited in the original Pashler et al. review. The persistence of this belief among trained educators illustrates the power of the social transmission mechanism described in Section 8.5.

Tier 3 — Illustrative Sources

These are constructed examples, composite cases, or pedagogical resources created for this textbook.

Mia Chen — composite character. Continued from Chapters 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. In this chapter, Mia confronts the learning styles myth that has shaped her academic identity since seventh grade. Her journey through denial, bargaining, anger, sadness, and integration illustrates the emotional difficulty of abandoning a learning myth that has become part of one's self-concept.

Diane and Kenji Park — composite characters. Continued from Chapter 5. In this chapter, Diane discovers that the study strategies she learned in college (rereading, highlighting) and has been teaching Kenji are rated low utility. The case study illustrates how ineffective strategies are transmitted across generations — Diane teaches Kenji the visible strategies she remembers, not the invisible active processing that actually drove her learning.

The five-factor model of myth persistence. The model presented in Section 8.5 (fluency reinforcement, confirmation bias, social transmission, identity attachment, discomfort of alternatives) is a pedagogical framework synthesized from multiple research traditions, not a single published theory. It draws on well-established concepts from cognitive psychology (fluency illusions, confirmation bias), social psychology (social transmission of beliefs), identity theory, and the learning science literature on strategy choice.

Recommended Next Steps

If you want to go deeper on Chapter 8's topics before moving to Chapter 9, here's a prioritized reading path:

1. Highest priority: Read the Pashler et al. (2008) paper on learning styles. It's only 15 pages, clearly written, and provides the definitive case against the meshing hypothesis. You'll find it freely available through most university libraries and some open-access repositories. Budget 45 minutes.

2. If you want the rereading/highlighting evidence in detail: Read the rereading and highlighting sections of the Dunlosky et al. (2013) meta-analysis (pages 24-30 and 15-19, respectively). These sections provide the granular evidence behind the "low utility" ratings. Budget 30 minutes for both sections.

3. If you want a compassionate, accessible debunking of multiple myths: Read Chapters 6-7 of Make It Stick by Brown, Roediger, & McDaniel, which cover illusions of knowing and the gap between what students think works and what actually works. Budget 1-2 hours.

4. If you're interested in the growth mindset debate: Read Carol Dweck's Mindset (2006) for the original framework, then search for more recent meta-analyses and commentaries that address replication concerns. Dweck's core insight — that beliefs about ability shape engagement with difficulty — is relevant to the "I'm not a math person" myth discussed in Section 8.4. Budget 2-3 hours for the book.

5. If you want to understand WHY rereading fails at a deeper cognitive level: Read ahead to Chapter 10 (Desirable Difficulties), which introduces Robert Bjork's storage strength vs. retrieval strength framework. This framework explains why rereading increases storage strength (information feels accessible) without increasing retrieval strength (the ability to access it without cues) — the theoretical mechanism behind the fluency illusion.

6. If you want to become an effective myth-buster for others: Read Daniel Willingham's Why Don't Students Like School? — his chapters on learning styles and other education myths provide the kind of clear, compassionate explanations you'll need when having these conversations with friends, classmates, parents, and teachers. Budget 3-4 hours for the full book.

Online Resources

Daniel Willingham's YouTube channel and website. Willingham, a cognitive scientist at the University of Virginia, has created several short, accessible videos debunking learning styles and other education myths. His video "Learning Styles Don't Exist" has been viewed millions of times and provides an excellent 5-minute summary of the evidence. His website includes blog posts addressing common questions and objections.

The Learning Scientists (learningscientists.org). This group of cognitive psychologists produces free, downloadable materials on evidence-based learning strategies. Their resources include infographics comparing high-utility and low-utility strategies, guides for replacing highlighting with elaboration, and accessible summaries of the Dunlosky meta-analysis. Particularly useful for students who want to share the evidence from this chapter with friends or study groups.

Retrieval Practice website (retrievalpractice.org). Focuses specifically on the strategy this chapter recommends as the primary replacement for rereading. Includes downloadable guides, implementation tips, and summaries of the testing effect research.

Veritasium's "The Biggest Myth in Education" video. A popular science video that covers learning styles with a clear explanation of the meshing hypothesis and the evidence against it. Useful for visual learners — or rather, useful for everyone, because effective communication helps all audiences, not just those with a particular "style."

End of Further Reading for Chapter 8.