Ben England
Literature Review
EDAC 635
17 September 2012
Learning Styles: A Review
The
term learning style can be generally defined as how one learns what one
learns (MacKeracher, 2004). In a more
realistic sense, it often refers to how one prefers to learn since learning
rarely occurs through just one style. The
idea that each individual has his own learning style and would learn best when
taught through this one style became popular in the 1970s (Pashler, McDaniel,
Rohrer, & Bjork, 2009), but this idea has also been scrutinized since its
inception. The number of schemes that
now exist to categorize and determine one’s learning style has grown
substantially, making comparisons difficult.
In one extensive review, Coffield, Moseley, Hall, and Ecclestone (2004),
reviewed seventy-one different learning styles.
Some of these have become more popular than others, of course. This review aims to outline the major
learning style paradigms and provide insight into current research that may
influence the way teachers teach.
One
of the more popular learning style paradigms is the model proposed by David
Kolb in his book Experiential Learning (1984).
The goal of learning, according to Kolb, is to grasp experience and
transform experience. The former can
happen through either concrete experience or abstract conceptualization; the
latter, through reflective observation or active experimentation. Kolb proposed that learning was really more
of a cyclic model, and that any person could begin learning in any of the four
aforementioned ways. The learner would
then cycle through all four, and everyone who learns uses all four in the
learning process. However, two of them
would become predominant, one for grasping information and one for transforming
it. These two would determine the
learner’s most predominant learning style.
The learner could then be characterized as a converger, diverger,
assimilator, or accommodator.
Convergers
use abstract conceptualization followed by active experimentation (MacKeracher,
2004). They are skilled at problem
solving and decision making. Divergers
use concrete experience and reflective observation. Their strengths are imaginative ability and
being able to see experiences from many different angles. Assimilators use abstract conceptualization
and reflective observation, and therefore most of their learning is done in
their minds. They can pull together
ideas to form sound theories into a cohesive whole. Accomodators use concrete experience and
active experimentation to learn. They
are capable of doing things well and not being afraid to fail the first time
they try something. Learning for the
accommodator is a physically active process.
The Learning Style Inventory (LSI) can be given to determine which of
the four types best fits someone’s learning style. Critiques of Kolb’s model have mainly focused
on its broad approach to learning, for not giving adequate attention to the
process of reflection, and for oversimplifying the learning process (Smith,
2001).
Another
popular model of learning styles is the Dunn and Dunn model, which is a
visual-auditory-kinesthetic (VAK) model.
This model suggests that a person learns best through either visual
teaching methods, which would be videos, illustrations, and drawings; through
auditory methods, which would be hearing the concepts spoken to them; or
through kinesthetic learning, which would involve doing, acting, role-playing,
or other hands-on activities (Pashler, 2009).
Furthermore, the Dunn and Dunn model suggests that teachers should
redesign their classroom and teaching methods to accommodate each student’s
learning style. The inventory used to
determine where on the VAK scale someone falls is mainly a self-answered
questionnaire. The main critique of the
Dunn and Dunn model is that no experiment has shown that dividing and
redesigning the classroom helps improve individual classroom performance.
A
revision on Kolb’s model was introduced in 1992 by Peter Honey and Alan Mumford
(Pashler, 2009). The Honey and Mumford
model is most often used in managerial settings, and revamps Kolb’s model into
four possible stages: having an experience, reviewing the experience,
concluding from the experience, or planning the next steps. Each of these corresponds to the following
styles: activist, reflector, theorist, or pragmatist. These terms are more flexible than in other
models, and Honey and Mumford assert that these styles are learned and
adaptable, not set in stone.
Another
popular model is that of Anthony Gregorc (1982). Here, there are perceptual qualities and
ordering abilities (MacKeracher, 2004).
The perception is either concrete or abstract, and the ordering is
either random or sequential. Concrete
perception is based on experiences and learning through the five senses. Abstract perception is learning based on
thinking about theories and logic that cannot be experienced. If the ordering of information in the
learner’s mind is random, it is in chunks of no logical order. If the learning is sequential, it follows a
logical, step-by-step path in one’s mind.
There are then four possible combinations of learners: concrete
sequential, concrete random, abstract sequential, or abstract random. Everyone displays qualities of all four
combinations, but one of them is predominant.
The learning style that is predominant determines one’s strengths and
weaknesses and how they learn best.
Less
complicated schemes of learning styles tend to reduce learners to one of four
categories: feelers, observers, thinkers, or doers (Lawson, 2009). In this basic model, everyone has a
predominant method, followed by a secondary method. Models such as these serve as quick
estimations of one’s learning styles, but the questionnaires involved are not
as detailed as in some of the other learning styles schemes.
Current research on the topic of
learning styles is plentiful and informative.
There are, inevitably, critics of the entire concept of learning
styles. On the other side, there are
those who support the concept of learning styles wholeheartedly. Current research in this area has mainly
focused on assessing classroom performance in schools following an
administration of a learning styles assessment or inventory. Findings have been controversial, as some
authors claim that learning styles play no role in actual learning, while
others suggest that learning styles inventories are useful, but should not be
used as a strict guideline on how to instruct learners.
A recent study by Sarah Allcock and
Julie Hulme (2010) divided psychology students into two groups based on either
academic ability or learning style. The
experiment lasted nine weeks, and instruction was given tailored to student’s
learning styles or academic abilities.
At the end of the nine weeks, post-tests were given and were compared to
the pre-tests. The findings showed an
overall improvement in performance, but no statistically significant difference
between the two groups. The authors
suggest that learning style inventories be more tailored to helping students
realize their own styles of learning and potential rather than being used to
redesign classrooms and pedagogical procedures.
Another study performed at a large
public university in California involved asking students to predict their own
learning style from a given list (Breckler, Teoh, & Role, 2011). Upon completing a learning styles inventory,
the results were compared to the predictions.
The results showed that most students successfully predicted their
predominant learning style, suggesting that they were already familiar with
their mental framework of learning. This
result further suggests that other factors play a role in academic achievement
and classroom performance.
One of the most recent scathing
critiques (Pashler, 2009) involved researching and reading through published
research articles in an effort to find what the authors deemed “appropriate
methodology” to assess the role of learning styles in a student’s actual
learning. The authors wanted to address
whether sufficient data existed to support the hypothesis that optimal learning
occurs when teaching is tailored to an individual’s learning style. The appropriate research design suggested by
the authors would be as follows.
Students would need to be split into groups based on learning
styles. For example, there would be an
auditory group, a kinesthetic group, and a visual group. Within each group, some students would be
taught visually, some would be taught orally, and some would be taught
kinesthetically. Therefore, some
students would be mismatched, meaning they are not receiving the style most
suited for their optimal learning. If all
students took the same test at the end of the experiment, then those who were
given instruction appropriate to their determined learning style would do
better than those who were mismatched.
The Pashler (2009) review scoured
hundreds of research articles, and found few that used this methodology. The articles that did report this methodology
also reported findings that teaching methods did not make a huge difference
given students’ learning styles. Pashler
et al also proposed that the idea of “statistically
significant versus practically important” be considered. The authors opine that even if statistical
significance were found, it would probably not be large enough to warrant a
complete overhaul of teaching methodologies and classroom setup. This conclusion and suggestion incited some
pushback from those who support the idea of learning styles and tailoring
teaching. One of the biggest critiques
of the Pashler et al review was that
it did not cite some of the most well-known authors on learning styles.
Other published studies, however,
have shown that learning styles do play a role in education and learning. A recent study focused on the Kolb LSI and
classroom performance of students in Iran (Mahyuddin, Elias, Daud, &
Shabani, 2011). The LSI was administered
to 285 tenth grade students, followed by calculating mean tests scores in each
of five core subjects, then averaging those to an overall score for each
student. The results showed a
statistically significant difference in the mean grades of the students based
on division into the four learning styles proposed by Kolb. Particularly salient was that the scores for
the assimilators and convergers were significantly higher than for the
accommodators and divergers. These
findings could suggest that the teacher’s methods were tailored more to those
who practice abstract conceptualization, and that those who depend on concrete
experiences were at a disadvantage.
Another study by Nail Yildirim (2010)
assessed whether seminars were more beneficial when planned according to the
learning styles of the attendees. A
series of seminars were planned based on the learning styles of those who would
be in attendance. Upon completion of the
seminars, the attendees indicated that they enjoyed the experiences and found them
useful. This suggests that the
effectiveness of seminars increases when the planners take into account the
learning styles of those who will be in attendance. Yildirim proposes that future studies examine
the effects of employee training when the training has been designed based on
the learning styles of the employees who will be participating in the
training.
As is evidenced by the hundreds and
thousands of published papers and reviews, there are varying opinions
surrounding the idea of learning styles and whether they do indeed play a role
in both classroom and adult lifelong learning.
The current research on this topic, as disparate as it may seem, does
offer a few suggestions on the practicality of tailoring teaching to learning
styles. The reviewed studies that
support the idea of learning styles do examine older children and adults as
opposed to younger children. This may
suggest that older children and adults benefit more from tailored teaching than
do younger children. Perhaps younger
children are more malleable in their learning styles, and predominant styles
are not set in stone until one reaches adolescence. If this were the case, the most practical
approach would be to wait until one reaches age sixteen or seventeen to
determine his predominant learning style.
More research would be needed in this area, but it would be worth the
effort to examine this. Revelations in
this area could nullify the need for classroom and teaching modifications at
the elementary and middle school level, and attention could shift to modifying
young adult and adult education programs to best benefit those involved.
References
Allcock, S. J., & Hulme, J. A. (2010). Learning
styles in the classroom: Educational benefit or
planning
exercise?. Psychology teaching review, 16(2), 67-79.
Breckler, J., Teoh, C. S., & Role, K. (2011).
Academic performance and learning style self-
predictions
by second language students in an introductory biology course. Journal of
the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(4), 26-43.
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.
Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential
learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lawson, K. (2009). The trainer's handbook. San
Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
MacKeracher, D. (2004). Making sense of adult
learning. (2nd ed.). Toronto, Canada: University
of
Toronto Press Incorporated.
Mahyuddin, R., Elias, H., Daud, S. M., & Shabani,
J. (2011). Academic achievement of students
with
different learning styles. International Journal of Psychological Studies,
3(2), 186-
192.
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R.
(2009). Learning styles: concepts and
evidence.
Psychological science in the public interest, 9(3), 105-119.
Smith, M. K. (2001). David A. Kolb on experiential
learning. Retrieved September 16, 2012,
Yildirim, N. (2010). Increasing effectiveness of
strategic planning seminars through learning
style.
Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(4), 12-24.
