We often have the theory of learning styles (LS) waved in front of us: the "VAK" construct of Barbe et al. (1979) was picked up by two Kiwi secondary school teachers proposing that learner preferences for visual, auditory, read/write, or kinaesthetic ("VARK") learning styles should be matched by the teaching delivery channel (Fleming & Mills, 1992, p. 140-141). LS is proposed "as (a) differential preferences for processing certain types of information or (b) for processing information in certain ways" (Willingham, 2015, p. 266). Despite repeatedly encountering LS in books, literature and online, be aware that it lacks apparent validity and replicability.
"Is there support for either prediction—for educational practice, or barring that, at least that the theory might be correct (even if it’s not helpful)? No. Several reviews that span decades have evaluated the literature on learning styles (e.g., Arter & Jenkins, 1979; Kampwirth & Bates, 1980; Kavale & Forness, 1987; Kavale, Hirshoren, & Forness, 1998; Pashler et al., 2009; Snider, 1992; Stahl, 1999; Tarver & Dawson, 1978), and each has drawn the conclusion that there is no viable evidence to support the theory. Even a recent review intended to be friendly to theories of learning styles (Kozhevnikov, Evans, & Kosslyn, 2014) failed to claim that this prediction of the theory has empirical support. The lack of supporting evidence is especially unsurprising in light of the unreliability of most instruments used to identify learners’ styles (for a review, see Coffield et al., 2004)" (Willingham et al, 2015, p. 267).
"Studies examining belief in the use of Learning Styles [by educators] have been carried out over the last few years in a number of different populations, and the overall trend is down, from 93% of UK schoolteachers in 2012 (Dekker), to 76% of UK schoolteachers in 2014 (Simmonds), 64% of HE [tertiary] academics in the US in 2014 (Dandy and Bendersky) to 58%" in this study. What is also worrying is "that one-third of academics in UK higher education have, in the last year, used a method that was shown to be ineffective more than a decade earlier" (Newton & Miah, 2017, p. 7).
Rather than pigeonholing learners into a single delivery style, we would be better to match our training delivery to the content or outcomes, taking note of dual-coding theory (Artino et al., 2023).
The more open we are, the better.
Sam
References:
Artino Jr, A. R., Iqbal, M. Z., & Crandall, S. J. (2023). Debunking the Learning-Styles Hypothesis in Medical Education. Academic Medicine, 98(2), 289. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000004738
Fleming, N. D., & Mills, C. (1992). Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection. To Improve the Academy, 11, 137-143. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-4822.1992.tb00213.x
Newton, P. M., & Miah, M. (2017). Evidence-Based Higher Education – Is the Learning Styles ‘Myth’ Important? Frontiers in Psychology, 8(444), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00444
Willingham, D. T., Hughes, E. M., & Dobolyi, D. G. (2015). The scientific status of learning styles theories. Teaching of Psychology, 42(3), 266-271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0098628315589505
Its complicated. CT
ReplyDeleteYes, I think you are right, Chris: it is complicated to do the research, and becomes complicated to critique things once they are accepted. From the Behavioural Psychology field revelations this year re HBR researchers - Francesca Gino, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, and Dave Ariely - we need to have that critique more often :-)
Delete