Learning type controversy
by Lynne Shandley
There is a widespread belief that individuals differ in their preferred mode of instruction ("learning style"). A particularly well-known model of learning says that:
ie the learning experience is optimized by meshing the teaching method to the preferred learning style.
It sounds great: Optimal training should be based around the preferred learning style(s) of the participants. Determining learning styles provides a lot of money to the training industry - companies and institutions want to make sure that they are providing the best possible training to their employees and students with their limited budgets so surely evaluating the each learner's favourite mode of learning using a proprietary testing tool and linking the results to the form of training provided will result in great learning outcomes?
Alas, there is very little scientific evidence for adapting teaching to the preferred learning style(s) of the participants. Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer and Bjork (2008) reviewed the literature for the Association for Psychological Science and, from hundreds of papers proposing all sorts of learning type theories, found a handful of papers that evaluated learning styles scientifically. These papers sorted students into learning types then split them into groups that were taught in a meshing style (eg visual learners given diagrams and illustrations) or non-meshing way (eg visual learners working hands on).
None of the papers showed that meshing the training modality to learning style improves learning outcomes.
“We found virtually no evidence for the interaction pattern mentioned above, which was judged to be a precondition for validating the educational applications of learning styles. Although the literature on learning styles is enormous, very few studies have even used an experimental methodology capable of testing the validity of learning styles applied to education. Moreover, of those that did use an appropriate method, several found results that flatly contradict the popular meshing hypothesis.” (p105, Pashler et al, 2008.)
Does this mean that meshing training methods to learning styles is dead?
The jury is still out. There is no science at this stage to justify using an assessment tool to determine learning preferences and then providing training based just on the learning preference(s) of the students. Training should use methods that reflect the audience and what they need to know. A group of manual handlers need different instruction compared to a class of trainee surgeons when it comes to learning about the back and how it impacts lifting and back injuries. Training should use a whole range of modalities to engage the learners.
References and further reading:
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9, 105-119 Available at: http://psychologicalscience.org/journals/pspi/PSPI_9_3.pdf (last accessed 13 January 2011)
Glenn, D (2009) Matching teaching style to learning style may not help students. (Interview with experts in the field) Available at: http://chronicle.com/article/Matching-Teaching-Style-to/49497/ (last accessed 1 December 2010)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_styles multiple authors (last accessed 1 December 2010)