Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. How People Learn II: Learners, Contexts, and Cultures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24783.
This activity was supported by grants and awards from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (Grant No. 2014-3-06), the American Educational Research Association (unnumbered award), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (Grant No. OPP1110470), the Institute of Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education (Grant No. R305U150005), the Teagle Foundation (unnumbered award), the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (Grant No. 2014-1118), with additional support from the National Academy of Sciences’ W.K. Kellogg Foundation Fund and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Presidents’ Circle Fund. Support for the work of the Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences is provided primarily by a grant from the National Science Foundation (Award No. BCS-1729167). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). How People Learn II: Learners, Contexts, and Cultures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/24783.
There are many reasons to be curious about the way people learn, and the past several decades have seen an explosion of research that has substantially expanded understanding of brain processes and what they mean for individual learning, schooling, and policy. In 2000, the report How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition (National Research Council, 2000; hereafter referred to as HPL I) was published and its influence has been both wide and deep, but 20 years later the research landscape has evolved still further. How People Learn II provides a much-needed update.
This book does not presume to provide answers to specific educational dilemmas—recipes for teaching or the proverbial “what to do on Monday morning.” Instead, the committee hopes that the book will be a tool that can enrich discussions about research and practice in education and learning for people of all ages. We have tried to present the existing scientific evidence in the most straightforward, accurate, and complete way that we can, and to synthesize and interpret the findings creatively. However, the practical applications that derive from the science will never be completely straightforward because the real world is highly complicated, with many moving parts and hidden complexities. The committee therefore asks you, the reader, to think critically about the findings we present in relation to your own work, and about how the findings reviewed here square with evidence and policies used to justify educational strategies, policies, and research questions in your professional context. Only through active debates and attempts to contextualize and adapt the findings beyond the narrow settings in which they often were studied will we create significantly new understanding and better policy and practice as they relate to learning.
This report is made possible by the generous sponsorship of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the American Educational Research Association, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Institute of Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education, the Teagle Foundation, and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, with additional support from the National Academy of Sciences’ W.K. Kellogg Foundation Fund and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Presidents’ Circle Fund. We especially acknowledge Ed Dieterle (formerly with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) who provided vision and enthusiasm for making this report a reality. We are grateful for the substantive core support to the Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences received from federal agencies, particularly the National Science Foundation’s Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Directorate and the National Institute on Aging’s Division of Behavioral and Social Research, which ensured necessary oversight on the project. We also appreciate the funds provided by the American Psychological Association.
Over the course of the study, committee members benefited from discussion and presentations by the many individuals who participated in our three fact-finding meetings. At the first committee meeting, Marc Chun (Hewlett Foundation), Felice Levine (American Educational Research Association), and Daniel Goroff (Sloan Foundation) each provided valuable background information on the goals of the study’s sponsors. In addition, Marianella Casasola (Cornell University) provided an overview of the research on thought and language in the bilingual infant. Barbara Rogoff (University of California, Santa Cruz) shared reflections on understanding cultural differences that influence how, why, and where people learn; and Guinevere Eden (Georgetown University) provided a review of the most recent neuroimaging research on reading and reading disabilities. Finally, members of the HPL I authoring committee provided insights on how best to approach the study process in order to meld ideas from diverse disciplines to maximize the impact of the report for research and practice. The HPL I committee members included Barbara Means (SRI International), Jose Mestre (University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign), Linda Nathan (Boston University), Penelope Peterson (Northwestern University), and Barbara Rogoff. The Webcast audience for this first meeting included individuals from the United States and several other countries: Brazil, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Iceland, the Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, and Taiwan.
At the second meeting, three committee members (Patricia Bauer, David Daniel, and Jeff Karpicke) briefed the committee and audience on the evidence regarding cognitive and developmental factors affecting learning in context. Robert Mislevy (Educational Testing Service) provided insights on how developments in psychology and technology challenge assessment in learning contexts, and Kevin Crowley (University of Pittsburgh) provided an overview of learning in informal settings. Finally, Elizabeth Albro (Institute of Education Sciences) shared the perspectives of the sponsor with the committee. The Webcast audience included individuals from Canada and the United States.
The third committee meeting included discussions from two different panels: (1) Panel on Learning in Adulthood and the Use of Technology for Learning in Adulthood and (2) Panel on Learning Disabilities, Universal Design for Learning, and Assistive Technology. The Learning in Adulthood panelists were Philip Ackerman (Georgia Institute of Technology), Walter Boot (Florida State University), and Ursula Staudinger (Columbia University). The Learning Disabilities and Universal Design for Learning panel included Donald Compton (Florida State University), Jack Fletcher (University of Houston), and David Rose (CAST). The Webcast audience for this meeting included individuals from Brazil, Canada, and the United States.
We thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Daniel E. Atkins, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Michigan (emeritus); Philip Bell, Learning Sciences and Human Development, University of Washington; John Dunlosky, Department of Psychological Sciences, Kent State University; Kris Gutiérrez, Educational Policy and Language, Literacy and Culture, University of California, Berkeley; Kenji Hakuta, School of Education, Stanford University; Karen R. Harris, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Arizona State University; David Klahr, Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University; Kenneth R. Koedinger, Pittsburgh Science of Learning Center, Carnegie Mellon University; Gloria Ladson-Billings, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Wisconsin–Madison; Lisa Linnenbrink-Garcia, Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Special Education, Michigan State University; Bruce McCandliss, Graduate School of Education, Stanford University; James W. Pellegrino, Learning Sciences Research Institute, College of Education, University of Illinois at Chicago; Diana C. Pullin, Lynch School of Education, Boston College; Barbara Rogoff, Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Cruz; Lorrie A. Shepard, Laboratory of Educational Research, School of Education, University of Colorado Boulder; and Brian A. Wandell, Department of Psychology, Stanford University.
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release.
certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.
Thanks are also due to the project staff and staff of the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (DBASSE). In particular, special thanks to Tina Winters, associate program officer, who was instrumental in organizing data-gathering opportunities for the committee, agenda development, facilitation of commissioned paper selection and contracting, and invaluable assistance in the writing and development of the committee’s final report. Renée Wilson Gaines, senior program assistant, also provided critical support to the study process by managing the study’s logistical and administrative needs, making sure meetings and workshops ran efficiently and smoothly, obtaining copyright permissions, and engaging in other essential report activities. Appreciation is also extended to Barbara Wanchisen, director of the Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences, and Heidi Schweingruber, director of the Board on Science Education, for their leadership, guidance, oversight of, and support for the study. We are also indebted to the National Academies consultant Robert Katt for final editing of the manuscript. We are particularly grateful to Patricia Morison and Alexandra Beatty for their support and significant assistance with improving the flow of the report. We thank the Executive Office staff of DBASSE, especially Kirsten Sampson-Snyder, who managed the review process, Yvonne Wise, who oversaw the final publication process, and Lisa Alston for financial oversight. Finally, we would like to thank the Research Center at the National Academies for their valuable support in conducting literature and data reviews, generating impact summaries, and supporting general research.
7-1 Do Students Have a Dominant Learning Style?