Learning style instruments: reasons why research evidence might have a weak influence on practitioner choice

Learning Styles theory promises improved academic performance based on the identification of a personal, sensory preference for informational processing. This promise is not supported by evidence, and is in contrast to our current understanding of the neuroscience of learning. Despite this lack of evidence, prior research shows that that belief in the Learning Styles “neuromyth” remains high amongst educators of all levels, around the world. This perspective article is a follow up on prior research aimed at understanding why belief in the neuromyth of Learning Styles remains so high. We evaluated current research papers from the field of health professions education, to characterize the perspective that an educator would be given, should they search for evidence on Learning Styles. As in earlier research on Higher Education, we found that the use of Learning Style frameworks persist in education research for the health professions; 91% of 112 recent research papers published on Learning Styles are based upon the premise that Learning Styles are a useful approach to education. This is in sharp contrast to the fundamental principle of evidence-based practice within these professions. Thus any educator who sought out the research evidence on Learning Styles would be given a consistent but inaccurate endorsement of the value of a teaching technique that is not evidence based, possibly then propagating the belief in Learning Styles. Here we offer perspectives from both research and student about this apparent mismatch between educational practice and clinical practice, along with recommendations and considerations for the future.

Download Full-text

What Does Evidence-Based Practice Mean to You? A Follow-Up Study Examining School-Based Speech-Language Pathologists' Perspectives on Evidence-Based Practice

American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology ◽

10.1044/2019_ajslp-19-00171 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 29 (2) ◽

pp. 688-704

Author(s):

Katrina Fulcher-Rood ◽

Anny Castilla-Earls ◽

Jeff Higginbotham

Keyword(s):

Clinical Practice ◽

Research Evidence ◽

Evidence Based Practice ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Clinical Expertise ◽

Speech Language Pathologists ◽

School Based ◽

Research Findings ◽

Ebp Implementation

Purpose The current investigation is a follow-up from a previous study examining child language diagnostic decision making in school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs). The purpose of this study was to examine the SLPs' perspectives regarding the use of evidence-based practice (EBP) in their clinical work. Method Semistructured phone interviews were conducted with 25 school-based SLPs who previously participated in an earlier study by Fulcher-Rood et al. 2018). SLPs were asked questions regarding their definition of EBP, the value of research evidence, contexts in which they implement scientific literature in clinical practice, and the barriers to implementing EBP. Results SLPs' definitions of EBP differed from current definitions, in that SLPs only included the use of research findings. SLPs seem to discuss EBP as it relates to treatment and not assessment. Reported barriers to EBP implementation were insufficient time, limited funding, and restrictions from their employment setting. SLPs found it difficult to translate research findings to clinical practice. SLPs implemented external research evidence when they did not have enough clinical expertise regarding a specific client or when they needed scientific evidence to support a strategy they used. Conclusions SLPs appear to use EBP for specific reasons and not for every clinical decision they make. In addition, SLPs rely on EBP for treatment decisions and not for assessment decisions. Educational systems potentially present other challenges that need to be considered for EBP implementation. Considerations for implementation science and the research-to-practice gap are discussed.

Download Full-text

Daily Fluctuations in Work Engagement

European Psychologist ◽

10.1027/1016-9040/a000160 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 19 (4) ◽

pp. 227-236 ◽

Cited By ~ 52

Author(s):

Arnold B. Bakker

Keyword(s):

Job Performance ◽

Work Engagement ◽

Research Evidence ◽

Organizational Outcomes ◽

Reciprocal Relationship ◽

Proactive Behavior ◽

Negative Events ◽

Daily Work ◽

Work Pressure ◽

Diary Research

This article presents an overview of the literature on daily fluctuations in work engagement. Daily work engagement is a state of vigor, dedication, and absorption that is predictive of important organizational outcomes, including job performance. After briefly discussing enduring work engagement, the advantages of diary research are discussed, as well as the concept and measurement of daily work engagement. The research evidence shows that fluctuations in work engagement are a function of the changes in daily job and personal resources. Particularly on the days that employees have access to many resources, they are able to cope well with their daily job demands (e.g., work pressure, negative events), and likely interpret these demands as challenges. Furthermore, the literature review shows that on the days employees have sufficient levels of job control, they proactively try to optimize their work environment in order to stay engaged. This proactive behavior is called job crafting and predicts momentary and daily work engagement. An important additional finding is that daily engagement has a reciprocal relationship with daily recovery. On the days employees recover well, they feel more engaged; and engagement during the day is predictive of subsequent recovery. Finding the daily balance between engagement while at work and detachment while at home seems the key to enduring work engagement.

Download Full-text