Learning Styles: Move along, nothing going on here
Janet Clarey, Workplace Learning Today, January 21, 2010.

Janet Clarey revisits some of the literature arguing against the use of learning style testing. Additionally, she links to Peter Smith, who repeats the dictum that comntent should determine the method of study. "For example, the Chronicle of Higher Education describes how learning about the structure of molecules is better for most students (independent of learning styles) by building ball-and-stick models." The paper behind this recent spate of commentary is blocked behind a paywall, preventing an effective assessment of the research.

There is a detailed abstract, however, which reiterates that "any credible validation of learning-styles-based instruction requires robust documentation of a very particular type of experimental finding." It is here, of course, where the real work is being done - the experimental results are an afterthought, an unsurprising consequence of a very specific procedure intended to produced them. If your idea of education is to blast content and students and then have them repeat it back to you, then yeah, learning styles won't make much of a difference. But education and learning are rather more subtle, and we should resist demands for blunt-instrument types of validation.
(Hits Today: 0 Total: 651) [Direct Link] [Tags: Learning Styles, Research, Assessment, Tests and Testing]

Share |

Comments

Re: Learning Styles: Move along

Anymouse, January 21, 2010

i could never understand the intensity with which learning styles are attacked. it's almost a dirty word in some circles. yet there are so many arguments against this attack. for example, why do we accept that people with learning disabilities DO need a variety of learning styles? do we really believe "we normal" people are so different? oh, don't get me started ... :) [Comment] [Permalink] [Previous][Next]

Re: Learning Styles: Move along

markcbain, January 22, 2010

The paper, "Learning Styles:Concepts and Evidence", by Harold Pashler, Mark McDaniel, Doug Rohrer, and Robert Bjork isn't behind a paywall - you can download it for free at http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pspi/PSPI_9_3.pdf and the accompanying editorial at http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pspi/PSPI_9_3_editorial.pdf. [Comment] [Permalink] [Previous][Next]

Re: Learning Styles: Move along

Scott Wilson, January 22, 2010

I think Learning Styles theories are rather like personality theories in psychology - they have descriptive power at some levels of generalisation, and don't really work at other levels.

However I think there is likely to be an effect in terms of styles of activity that have an impact on motivation rather than learning.

For example, what macro-level studies on learning styles are seeing may be effects on motivation that have an impact on learning over a larger scale (e.g. how much effort and enthusiasm an individual invests in a study programme over time) but really aren't anything to do with learning itself.

Whereas micro-level studies are measuring impact on learning where longer-term motivation is less of a factor, e.g. on learning a single principle in a classroom setting. [Comment] [Permalink] [Previous][Next]

Re: Learning Styles: Move along

amjobe, January 24, 2010

I find that whenever anyone talks about learning styles they could be talking about anything. Usually they are referring to VAK, but this isn't what I'd call learning styles. Howard Gardner started using the term and so did Bandler and grinder in their original NLP text but neither talked about them as Learning Styles. So often the nay sayers don't have a full understanding of what they are critiquing. Even this article uses David Kolb's original text from 1984. He's written many articles since then and has over 1000 articles, positive and negative, about his theory of learning styles listed on his website. People who consider themselves instructional designers seem threatened by learning styles, but when you look at their work they actually use them (if you consider the Kolb version of learning stylesS). Seems quite a strange argument that's going on. There was also the scientific caveat in this paper "it would be an error to conclude that all possible versions of learning styles have been tested and found wanting; many have simply not been tested". The whole argument is a bit like saying "TV is bad for you" without specifying which program - it's just a blanket statement. And as Kolb says himself, the idea is to take people through a learning process, rather than direct the instruction to one specific style, no wonder they theory doesn't work if it isn't used properly. [Comment] [Permalink] [Previous][Next]

Re: Learning Styles: Move along

markcbain, January 25, 2010

Anyone here wish to make a specific rebutal of the Pasher, et al paper? You can download it here. amjobe, I don't have a full understanding of unicorns, but still I know they don't exist. And don't you find it worrying that no testing has been carried out on many versions of the learning style theory that are being actively promoted in schools? It isn't up to the "naysayers" to test these theories; the believers should produce evidence that at least one of these theories works before experimenting with our kids. [Comment] [Permalink] [Previous][Next]

Comment



Title
Your comment:
Enter email to receive replies:

Your comments always remain your property, but in posting them here you agree to license under the same terms as this site (CC By-NC-SA). If your comment is offensive it will be deleted.

Automated Spam-checking is in effect. If you are a registered user you may submit links and other HTML. Anonymous users cannot post links and will have their content screened - certain words are prohibited and your comment will be analyzed to make sure it makes sense.