Literature Review- Ben England

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,

            from: http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-explrn.htm.

Yildirim, N. (2010). Increasing effectiveness of strategic planning seminars through learning

            style. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(4), 12-24.