Learning styles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Learning styles are different ways people can learn. It is commonly believed that most people favor some particular method of interacting with, taking in, and processing stimuli or information. Over 70 learning style models have been proposed, each consisting of at least two different styles. Psychologists and neuroscientists have questioned the scientific basis for most of these models and the theories on which they are based. A major report published in 2004 cast doubt on most of the main tests used to identify an individual's learning style. ^[1]

Contents 1 Models and theories 1.1 Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic (VAK and VARK) 1.2 Other models 2 Lack of evidence 3 See also 4 References 5 External links

[edit] Models and theories

Tools or questionnaires used to identify learning styles include Kolb's Learning Styles Inventory, Fleming's VARK Learning Style Test, and the NLP meta programs based iWAM questionnaire. The following instruments represent 12 major approaches to learning styles.

• Allinson and Hayes’ Cognitive Styles Index (CSI)
• Apter’s Motivational Style Profile (MSP)
• Dunn and Dunn model and instruments of learning styles
• Entwistle’s Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST)
• Gregorc’s Mind Styles Model and Style Delineator (GSD)
• Herrmann’s Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI)
• Honey and Mumford’s Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ)
• Jackson’s Learning Styles Profiler (LSP)
• Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory (LSI)
• Riding’s Cognitive Styles Analysis (CSA)
• Sternberg’s Thinking Styles Inventory (TSI)
• Vermunt’s Inventory of Learning Styles (ILS).

This is not an exhaustive list and at least 58 other instruments have been developed.

[edit] Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic (VAK and VARK)

One family of models emphasizes the sensory modalities of informing stimuli. The models in this family may use different terms to describe same or similar learning styles. These models often describe four basic learning styles:

• visual (learn by seeing)
• verbal/auditory (learn by hearing)
• reading/writing (learn by processing text) (This category is not always listed.)
• kinesthetic or practical (learn by doing).

In such models, the term multi-modal describes people who have more than one strong learning style.

[edit] Other models

Aiming to explain why aptitude tests, school grades, and classroom performance often fail to identify real ability, Robert J. Sternberg listed various cognitive dimensions in his book Thinking Styles (1997). Several other models are also often used when researching learning styles. This includes the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligence Model and the DISC assessment.

In contrast to the VARK method of assessing learning, Jackson’s Learning Styles Profiler (LSP) argues for a biological and cognitive basis to learning. This 'neuropsychological theory' does not set out to measure learning preferences. Instead Jackson sets out to differentiate between functional and dysfunctional learners. Functional learners are curious about the world and have the cognitive skills to become successful whereas dysfunctional learners lack these skills. This is a new model of self-development learning with much validation evidence set out in the manual.

[edit] Lack of evidence

Educational psychologists are generally critical of the lack of evidence and dubious theoretical grounds for learning style models.^[2] According to Stahl,^[3] "the reason researchers roll their eyes at learning styles research is the utter failure to find that assessing children's learning styles and matching to instructional methods has any effect on their learning."

A literature review by a team from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne identified 71 different theories of learning style.^[1] In conducting the review, Coffield and his colleagues selected 13 of the most influential models for closer study, including most of the models cited on this page. The researchers examined the theoretical origins and terms of each model, and the instrument that was purported to assess types of learning style defined by the model. They analyzed the claims made by the author(s), external studies of these claims, and independent empirical evidence of the relationship between the 'learning style' identified by the instrument and students' actual learning.

One of the most widely-known theories assessed by Coffield's team was the visual, auditory and kinaesthetic (VAK) learning styles model.^[4] The conclusions about the VAK model were unequivocal:

Despite a large and evolving research programme, forceful claims made for impact are questionable because of limitations in many of the supporting studies and the lack of independent research on the model.^[1]

Another model, Gregorc's Style Delineator (GSD), was found to be "theoretically and psychometrically flawed" and "not suitable for the assessment of individuals." In fact, Coffield's team found that none of the most popular learning style theories had been adequately validated through independent research, leading to the conclusion that the idea of a learning cycle, the consistency of visual, auditory and kinaesthetic preferences and the value of matching teaching and learning styles were all "highly questionable."

The Newcastle team are not alone in their judgement. Demos, a UK think tank, published a report on learning styles prepared by a group chaired by Exeter University's David Hargreaves that included Usha Goswami from Cambridge University and David Wood from the University of Nottingham. The Demos report said that the evidence for learning styles was "highly variable", and that practitioners were "not by any means frank about the evidence for their work." ^[5]

Cautioning against interpreting neuropsychological research as supporting the applicability of learning style theory, John Geake, Professor of Education at the UK's Oxford Brookes University, and a research collaborator with Oxford University's Centre for Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain, commented that

We need to take extreme care when moving from the lab to the classroom. We do remember things visually and aurally, but information isn't defined by how it was received.^[6]

[edit] See also

• Individual differences psychology
• Education
• Montessori method
• Learning
• Constructivism (learning theory)
• Metacognition

[edit] References

1. ^ ^{a b c} Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning. A systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre.
2. ^ Curry, L. (1990). A critique of the research on learning styles. Educational Leadership, 48, 50-56.
3. ^ Stahl, S. A. (2002). Different strokes for different folks? In L. Abbeduto (Ed.), Taking sides: Clashing on controversial issues in educational psychology (pp. 98-107). Guilford, CT, USA: McGraw-Hill.
4. ^ Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. E. (1984). Learning style inventory. Lawrence, KS, USA: Price Systems.
5. ^ Hargreaves, D., et al. (2005). About learning: Report of the Learning Working Group. Demos.
6. ^ Revell, P. (2005). Each to their own. The Guardian.

[edit] External links

• Infed's David A. Kolb on Experiential Learning
• online VARK Learning Style Test
• Learnativity: Learning Styles
• Introduction to learning styles by Ann Harris, Ferl, Becta
• The effect of Learning Styles, Work attitude and Motivation on Lifelong Learning
• Ageless Learner
• Big Dog's ISD Page
• NC State University (Online Test)
• Reaching the second tier learning and teachong styles in college science education
• Learning styles and strategies - Richard M. Felder
• University of Minnesota resources on learning styles
• Myers-Brigg and learning styles
• Tutorial on learning styles
• Indiana State University learning styles site
• Paragon learning styles inventory
• James Madison University learning styles site
• University of South Dakota learning styles resources